Image 01 Image 03

Senate Republicans seek victory (over House Republicans)

Senate Republicans seek victory (over House Republicans)

Don’t get angry, primary them.

Who could have seen this coming?

Senate Republicans undercut the House proposal for a 6 week debt ceiling extension by proposing a longer extension:

Senate Republicans Look To Jam Boehner

Obama sided with the Senate Republicans, rejecting a short term extension.  Via Keith Koffler, Obama Reverses, Opposes Short-Term Debt Ceiling Hike:

Perhaps sensing Republican weakness, President Obama reversed himself and is pushing back against short-term debt ceiling hike, stressing in his weekly address released this morning what a bad idea it would be.

It wouldn’t be wise, as some suggest, to just kick the debt ceiling can down the road for a couple months, and flirt with a first-ever intentional default right in the middle of the holiday shopping season.

After the GOP was offfered earlier this week what I described as a cave-in by Obama – a willingness to accept a short term debt ceiling increase while negotiations Obama has previously rejected kicked in – Republicans failed to act, dithering for days and failing to forge a unified position between their House and Senate caucuses.

Instead, sloppy Republican leadership allowed competing proposals to emerge from the House and Senate, with a Senate plan that would extend government financing for six months and raise the debt ceiling through January 2014. House Republicans sought to raise the debt limit until the week before Thanksgiving.

As any general knows, when your opposition is divided, you win. Obama acted smartly to abet the divisions among Republicans by inviting them separately to the White House. At his meeting with GOP senators, Republicans were reduced to asking Obama what was in the House plan.

What a joke. Republicans should have gotten their act together and insisted on a meeting between House and Senate GOP leaders and the president. This would have made sense unless, of course, House Speaker John Boehner was never serious about the House position to begin with . . .

Paul Ryan recognizes that the Senate Republicans undercut the House:

You know what I say? Primary them.

Update: It’s not as if undermining the House even got Senate Republicans anything:

Well, some good news:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


And if they survive the primary, vote 3rd party.

For those who say a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Obama, my response is that a vote for the Vichy Republicans is already a vote for Obama. Stand for your beliefs, or don’t stand at all.

    Really? So you’d prefer Collectivist majorities in BOTH houses, and a veto-proof majority in the Senate?

    Seems pretty stupid to me. Unless you want to follow a “let it burn” strategy, which I am torn to follow.

    We ARE having a fight right now we would not have if we did as you suggest.

      mackykam in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 3:11 pm

      Guess the answer is yes. How much worse can things get? It is only because we keep voting for the slightly lesser evil that these Rhinos keep pulling this crap. Fear of what Dems do is the impetus for rhino republicans being re-elected. Enough already.!

      Bite the bullet, suck it up: You’ve got to cut out the poison before you begin to heal.

        Ragspierre in reply to mackykam. | October 12, 2013 at 3:31 pm

        “How much worse can things get?”

        VASTLY. What do you think stands between the UN arms treaty Kerry signed and your right to self-defense?

        Seriously, I wonder what some of us use for brains!

        And I voted for…and supported…Cruz. I would and will again.

          Subotai Bahadur in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 4:39 pm

          We are seeing now that the Institutional Republicans are trying desperately to get Obama to accept their surrender on any terms. They have demonstrated that they have no constitutional principles that they will stand for. The Senate is shot through with enough collaborationists to give Reid his 60 votes if he flatters them enough. And in any case he has threatened to abolish the filibuster and the Republicans have backed down already before.

          So what confidence can there be that the Republicans will NOT pass the UN Arms Treaty anyway? And what leverage do Constitutionalists have over them, absent a credible threat to their holding office? And what threat is there if we let them keep walking all over us?

          The Bill of Rights has been sh*tcanned in front of our eyes, with the Institutional Republicans carefully avoiding the subject. The House of Representatives has lost the power of the purse over the last 5 years. The Senate has claimed the power does not exist for that long for Congress as a whole. The Republican surrender over both the Continuing Resolution and the Debt Ceiling will make further House meetings moot, because they control nothing. Rule by Executive decree is now an acceptable norm.

          The electoral process has been corrupted beyond repair, and the Institutional Republicans have signed a court consent decree accepting this forever. [US Third Circuit Court of Appeals, Case No. 09-4615

          Both the House and Senate Institutionals are calling for holding the Conservatives “accountable” for causing the shutdown, i.e. making them pretend to stand up to Obama. Remembering that Boehner’s first act upon becoming Speaker was to purge all Conservative committee chairs, we can see where this is going. The RNC is going to be at war with the TEA Party and all Conservatives anyway.

          Leaving the Institutionals hanging means that the Democrats will probably get what they want without the charade of the Republicans resisting, instead of them pretending to oppose the Democrats and the Democrats then getting what they want. The issue has not been how much a hard fighting Republican party has tried to hold the Democrats to the Constitution. It is that no matter what, the Democrats are the enemies of the Constitution; and the Institutionals are perfectly good with that so long as they maintain their status in Capitol City.

          Conservatives cannot do ANYTHING to fight the enemies of the Constitution if they first have to fight a battle with the Institutional Republicans on every issue.

          Whether or not McCain, Graham, Ayotte, Collins, Alexander, Burr, Chambliss, Coburn, Corker, Flake, Heller, Hoeven, Isaakson, Kirk, Toomey, and Wicker vote for the UN Treaty or not, which is more than enough to ratify anything [and they all have voted FOR Obama’s gun control this session]; the enemy will keep trying. And it may well be that the defense of the Second Amendment will become more practical than theoretical and legalistic. If it suddenly becomes something in some Institutionals’ self interest to defend the Constitution; we may avoid practical measures. Pre-emptive surrender to Obama will not avoid them.

          Subotai Bahadur

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 4:53 pm


          Nothing new.

          Some of you act like you just discovered this.

          I’ve been around since before Reagan, and remember well the loathing he got from some Progressive Republicans.

          Took awhile, too, and a lot of very canny groundwork, before he could run for nation office.

          If you don’t remember, look it up. See for yourself.

          Eastwood Ravine in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 5:19 pm

          “Conservatives cannot do ANYTHING to fight the enemies of the Constitution if they first have to fight a battle with the Institutional Republicans on every issue.”

          Subotai Bahadur is 100% correct, Ragspierre. The only way for Institutional Republicans to learn is by consequences. They are going to have to lose their majority in the House and lose numbers in the Senate to learn how wrong they are in demonizing their formerly loyal voters. Some Republican governors should lose as well, so their political ambitions are stalled if not halted outright. If that happened in a election year that is *supposed* to be a Republican wave, maybe elected Republicans might start paying attention to the reformers, conservatives, and constitutionalists that constitute the activist base.

          There are two maxims that come to mind:

          Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
          It’s going to get harder before it gets better.

          It’s high time Republicans in D.C. learned this lesson. The only way for them to learn it is the hard way.

          I realize what I’m saying. The Democrats would have carte blanche FOR AT LEAST TWO YEARS, which could mean losing a “conservative-leaning” Supreme Court.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 5:29 pm

          “Subotai Bahadur is 100% correct, Ragspierre.”

          Well, if he is, he’s superhuman.

          And, no, he is NOT. This is politics. It isn’t a light switch where things are on or off.

          You need to read some classical history.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 5:48 pm

          “The electoral process has been corrupted beyond repair…”

          Then, pard, you need to draw a nice warm bath and slit your wrists.

          I am a bit…notice “bit”…more optimistic.

          And I’d be all-in on “let it burn” except I remember the history of Rome, and letting a Caesar in took a lot of burning, and Rome never did quite recover from “let it burn”.

          As I allude to below, there is another way, and it involves simple civil disobedience, which is not easy…just simple.

          No government can continue with broad enough passive insurrection.

          And, remember, we ARE insurrectionists.

      We already have collectivist majorities in both houses in Congress. It takes a willing suspension of disbelief to pretend otherwise.

      But go ahead and surrender, if it makes you feel better.

        Serious question…

        Do you have trouble reading…???

          Serious question:

          Is it possible you do not see the massive inconsistencies in in your argument?

          I was once like you – it was GOP or bust, as far as I was concerned. I overlooked a lot, and my reward was watching the GOP drift into a collectivist sewer only slightly less fetid that the Democrat Party.

          So I predict one day you will wise up. It just won’t be today.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 6:33 pm

          I see you are making a raft of baseless ASSumptions.

          I have no affilation with the GOP whatsoever, and have not for decades.

          Nothing I said supports your “surrender” bullspit.

          And nothing you’ve said is based in reality. I’ve been all over the “third party” ideal. It MAY become necessary. If it DOES, it will take YEARS to make viable. We don’t have years.

          I HAVE seen elections lost because of a third-party candidate. And I don’t propose we lose elections.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 6:37 pm

          “I was once like you… So I predict one day you will wise up.”


          I can look forward to being as wise as you, with time.

          Or MAYBE you could learn you’re not the vessel of wisdom you think you are…?

“Anchoring” is an important concept in negotiations.

You set your anchor high, and you can afford to come off of that to reach a deal.

BUT it is NOT written anywhere that when you are dealing with a party that has no good-faith position, you need to leave any “anchors” in place.

When I make an offer to a party opponent, and they reject it, I REVOKE the offer. I am not bashful about getting HARDER in negotiation.

RESETTING your anchor HIGHER is often the right thing to do.

    ManekiNeko in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 2:08 pm

    What the House should do now is pass a “clean” CR, but at 2005 levels. After the screaming stops, offer 2008 levels.

      Ragspierre in reply to ManekiNeko. | October 12, 2013 at 2:29 pm

      I like that.

      Another route would be to insist on “regular order”…or an actual budget…with some variations.

      (Regular order was kind of kludgy and slow.)

        ManekiNeko in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 3:02 pm

        I have not looked the numbers, but it seems possible that at 2005 spending levels, no
        debt ceiling increase would be required. Maybe even with 2008 levels. So the House leadership could announce it as a solution to both problems.

        You are absolutely correct that the House leadership doesn’t understand how to conduct a negotiation with someone who is not acting in good faith.

Eastwood Ravine | October 12, 2013 at 2:03 pm

Obama, Reid, and the rest of Democrats in Congress (and likely everywhere else, elected and unelected) are not only now openly dedicated to wanting the unconditional surrender of Republican party (especially so of conservatives and Tea party activists), they want the Republican party to perform Seppuku (ritual suicide) as well.

So here is the question: What do you do when the bullies won’t relent, and there aren’t referees to go to, because the referees are supporting the bullies?

Either LET IT BURN or civil war are the options. Civil war plays right into their plans, because Obama is prepared to dictate by EO.

So whether we vote for Republicans, 3rd party, don’t vote at all, LET IT BURN is the only logical path forward.

Not sure what part of “I will not negotiate” the republicans don’t understand.

republicans: we’ll give you everything you want, just promise you’ll talk to us…afterwards.

Obama: No.

It’s clear Boehner needs to pull out the oldest trick in the book: send flowers, with a note “please call…I’m begging you”.

We’d be seeing better results if, as in Florida, closed-door meetings like this were not permitted, and everyone’s position was “in the sunshine”. I suspect that these “negotiations” aren’t on the subject matter per se.

I hope Boehner has offered his final rump lick. I think we’re lucky that Hussein turned him down. Collins is a disgrace, but no news there.

Final offer: $500B debt ceiling, clean spending bill, and ACA has all mandates struck down permanently. No fees, fines, audits, regulatory requirements for any entity.

Senate Republicans on Saturday blocked a bid by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to extend the nation’s debt limit until after the 2014 midterm elections.

In an 53-45 vote, the Senate failed to win the 60 votes necessary to advance the debt-limit measure to a floor debate. The bill would increase the federal debt by an estimated $1.1 trillion.

Every Democrat supported the measure, though Reid switched his vote at the end to preserve the right to bring the motion up for another vote later.

    Browndog in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 3:06 pm

    Thing is, the republicans want to pass a clean Everything Obama Wants CR, and debt limit increase.

    Boehner would love to, too. But, to do it now he’d have to pass it using the democrats; basically making Pelosi de facto Speaker.

    Politics is hard when you have no convictions.

    Senate Republicans on Saturday blocked a bid by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to extend the nation’s debt limit until after the 2014 midterm elections.

    Well, wait a week or two. Enough of the Vichy Republicans will come around. In the Holy name of Bipartisanship, of course. And what difference does it make if Congress passes the Vichy Republicans’ proposal of 6 months or the Democrats wait-until-after-the-2014-elections “alternative”? They both fulfill the collectivists’ goal of spend-spend-spend. Sort of like pretending there is a real difference between falling off of a 50-story building and a 100-story one.

    I just don’t see why voting for the Vichy Republicans if they win primary fights makes any sense whatsoever.

    Henry Hawkins in reply to Ragspierre. | October 12, 2013 at 10:00 pm

    Rags, please indicate it when you cut and paste from someone else’s article. (Unless you are Alexander Bolton writing for The Hill, lol).

There is another way…

Just say, “Back atcha…”.

If we refuse to support the Federal government, it simply cannot continue.

From Federalist #58

The House of Representatives can not only refuse, but they alone can propose the supplies requisite for the support of Government. They, in a word, hold the purse; that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the People gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the Government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon, with which any Constitution can arm the immediate Representatives of the People, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure.

Is either the slow train to hell or the Express elevator to hell.

Why Hell, you might ask?

Instead of telling our Politicians to go to hell, they seem intent on building one here.

The problem here is that the “leadership” on the Republican side never wanted anything to do with negotiating with Obama in the first place. They wanted to surrender preemptively.

Once their membership dragged them kicking and screaming into a fight with Obama, they then failed completely to create any sort of strategy because they have no idea how.

They’ve never tried fighting before, after all, so it’s no surprise they aren’t good at it.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to irv. | October 12, 2013 at 7:48 pm

    Truly, We The People need to say clearly and frequently to GOP leadership, Lead… Follow… or Get the HELL out of the way! And, hold ’em to that!

Boehner is already jamming himself. No help is needed.


1. Boehner is not the leader we need in the House

2. Anybody can be Speaker…they don’t have to be a Member

3. Political animals ARE going to act like political animals (generally)

Let’s start a movement to put Bill Whittle in as Speaker!

Radical, I grant. So…???

TrooperJohnSmith | October 12, 2013 at 7:43 pm

What. The. Fu*k. Internecine strife is the worst kind: blue-on-blue.

Goddamn, people… look at the posters, here. Look at our Congress, the Party faithful. Internal strife. Backstabbing. Name calling. Ad hominem attacks are routine.

We have a president who is out of control, an economy in the tank and a press who is functioning as a Fifth Column for the DNC. Yet we resort to a circular firing squad. We tear one another apart.

The Left is a hive. Our individualism is our downfall. In a fit of irony, the Salon’s comparison of the GOP to the late Confederacy is more apt than you realize, but not in the way they suggest. No, while Lincoln suspended the Bill of Rights, the Confederacy stumbled on in the notion that individual states’ rights and personal liberty were the cause for which they fought, and thus they never resorted to suspension of rights, confiscation of property or even conscription.

We all need to find common ground, or we will perish. Or, as Franklin said, we need to hang together or we will hang separately.

I personally don’t give the RNC a dime. I do give to individual candidates. Here in Texas, I will give to either Stovall or Gohmert against RINO Cornyn. Now, having said that, until he’s replaced I do believe he will be better than a Democrat about 95% of the time.

    The Republicans in the House shut down the government because the Democrats didn’t negotiate. I don’t care one whit about what any self appointed “moderate” wants. They all wanted this shutdown over Obamacare and now when the going gets tough, they want to kneel before Obama and surrender.

    These stupid people were put there to stop Obamacare, they send out mailers using Obamacare as some scary boogeyman to conservatives and then use the most meaningless gestures to “stop it.”

    People like King and McCain need to leave the party. We are flushing these idiots out of the woodwork and need to keep doing so like the Democrats did in the 60’s. Do you see how responsive they are to their base? The left votes for a person and they stay EXACTLY the same when they get into office. Ours don’t and it needs to STOP. People like Rubio, Kasich, McDonnell, 1/3 to 1/2 the Republicans in the House (all of them if they vote to surrender without any concessions), McCain, Corker, Hatch, Graham, Alexander, Murkowski, Chambliss, Flake, Burr, and the ever whiney ineffective Coburn. They were elected to do a job and if they can’t fight then they must be removed.

    The internal strife is coming from one wing of the party lashing out to the others because it doesn’t want to do what their base wants. They want to be a big government party, but with themselves at the helm. They want to go along with the Democrats, but at a slower pace. What did they do the last time they were in power? Medicare Part D, NO SS/Medicare reforms, tried to ram through amnesty (like they are trying to do it again), and so many others like the Patriot Act (which so many were cautioning that it would be abused, SURPRISE NSA/FBI).

    These people have shut down the government for two weeks for a reason and conservatives better get something out of it other than some completely freaking useless handout to big business medical device tax repeal. Vote them out. They need to understand that business as usual is over and we are at a crisis point. This country is 17 TRILLION DOLLARS IN DEBT DAMN IT. We need people in there who won’t wake up in the morning thinking about how they are going to screw over their base and country today.

People go where they are led. Boehner and McConnell are not leaders, they are agenda managers. They need to go if the GOP is to advance, and I don’t mean replacing them with their respective seconds, Eric Cantor or John Cornyn.

The GOP also needs to drag itself into the 21st century in terms of messaging, campaigning, and outreach.

While I can understand the probable futility of the GOP courting blacks, feminists, or other automatic Democrats, why in hell would they eschew members and political/ideological compatriots of the Tea Party? These are tens of millions of voters. They work. They donate to campaigns.

The largest group of voters enjoy a plurality over Democrats and Republicans – so-called independents. Why do they stay out of the two main parties? Neither the Dems or the GOP seem to know. The first to learn why and then fill at least some of those needs will know power.

We don’t need a third party. Depending on its nature, its politics, third parties merely siphon off crucial votes from one party or the other – Greenies from Dems, Perotistas from the GOP, etc. – and they ultimately accomplish nothing for themselves.

America has done quite well with the two-party system. However, one of them needs to go. I’d prefer it be the Democrats, especially given that leftists have taken it over, to the great detriment of the country over the past five years especially. But this happened because the GOP has grown fat and weak, too weak and sated to push itself back from the government trough. The current Dems need to go and the current GOP is entirely incapable of it.

No, a third party is not what is needed. We need a new second party. Political Darwinism ensures it will be the weaker party to go, the one most unable to adapt to its environment.


As for this emerging federal fascism, Rags is correct – civil disobedience is the effective move, the only play that will work since we haven’t time anymore to boot bums via elections.

They think it will make them look just centrist enough to get re-elected.

How idiotic…did they learn nothing from Bush’s pandering at the end of his 2nd term?

Democrats rammed through Obama-Care without a single Republican vote, the House has passed repeal measures dozens of times, but the anger on our side because this STUPID idea to stop it didn’t work is against other Republicans?

We rushed into Obama’s shutdown trap, and now he is laughing and drinking beer watching us tear each other apart.

The track of public sentiment was headed our direction until we decided to tilt windmills because, by God, we hate freakin’ windmills.

    “The track of public sentiment was headed our direction” ???

    wtf? Is this some kind of popularity contest? Lets go along to get along and maybe one day they’ll favor a spending cut?

    Oh I know! We need a Moderate to lead us! A MAVERICK Moderate who everyone will love because he throws his own party under the bus to appear “reasonable”. Sure, he’ll abandon some good causes along the way, but think about the long game – the public and the media will just LOVE him when we run our Maverick Moderate for President!

    oh wait…


      Henry Hawkins in reply to Fen. | October 13, 2013 at 10:43 am

      It is endemic of the problem with the GOP – they are poll chasers. Attracting ‘public sentiment’ trumps principles and values.