It's not just a tweet - it's a re-tweet of the Heritage Foundation that showed up on the Speaker of the House's feed. Yes, the Heritage Foundation - you know the people who scored the first Bush Tax Cut and reported they would:
1) Effectively pay off the federal debt;
2) Reduce the federal surplus by $1.4 trillion;
3) Substantially increase family income;
4) Save the entire Social Security surplus;
5) Increase personal savings;
6) Create more job opportunities.
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. And wrong. Nice credible people to associate with, Boehner. Even better people to have your aide parrot on Twitter.
I've yet to see 140-characters sum up a person better than this tweet. Amazing.
And of all the CEOs in the world who could be kvetching about the Affordable Care Act - they quote one from a fast food chain?!
“I’m very concerned that in the coming years we’ll be unable to create as many jobs as we would like due to the increased expenses necessitated by laws such as the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act],” Andy Puzder testified.
Oh no! Fewer burger flipping jobs?! In America? Right.
Let us not forget that when we're talking about minimum wage jobs - we're talking about jobs you can't live on so you're forced to rely on food stamps and Medicaid to survive. When we talk about minimum wage jobs - we're talking about government subsidized workers.
Andy Puzder CEO of Carls Jr. is a McJobs creator.
Hey Boehner - where are all those taxpayer-funded McJobs?
On "This Week" with Christiane Amanpour, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi dodged a question about how she would have voted on the bill funding the Afghanistan war:
AMANPOUR: Can I ask you about some of the important news that's been made this week, particularly in -- in the House and that would be on Afghanistan. Last year, 32 Democrats voted against the funding of the war in Afghanistan. This year, 102 Democrats voted against. That seems to be a dramatic rejection from the president's own party of his major strategic goal.
PELOSI: Well, not quite. You have to put the votes in perspective.
Our president came in. He was president maybe two months, three months, by the time we took the vote last year. And the Republicans said they weren't going to vote for the funding. And so it took all Democratic votes.
I persuaded my members to give this president a chance, to give him room in order to have time to implement his plan. And in -- and in the course of time -- now the Republicans said they would vote for it, it gave my members the freedom to express themselves on the war in Afghanistan.
AMANPOUR: Now, you didn't vote.
AMANPOUR: I know the speaker doesn't have to vote.
AMANPOUR: But how would you have voted?
PELOSI: Well, we brought the bill to the floor. And that was a statement that said that we knew that our troops needed to have what was -- what they needed to have would be provided for them. So we will never abandon our men and women in uniform. On the other hand, it gave our members a chance to express their view.
AMANPOUR: How long do you think you can keep your skeptical members, as you call them, on side?
PELOSI: Well, again, we have a -- varying degrees of expression here. We are there, we've taken an oath to defend the constitution and therefore the American people. And that's what people will be looking at -- how does this figure into our protecting the American people?
Is it worth it?
AMANPOUR: Well, is it worth it?
AMANPOUR: Is it worth it?
PELOSI: That's the question.
AMANPOUR: But that's my question to you.
PELOSI: Well, we will -- as I said, we will see the metrics as they unfold in the next few months and certainly by the end of this year.
AMANPOUR: But what does your gut tell you?
PELOSI: in my visits to afghanistan, the last time i was there was over mother's day weekend to visit the troops... and the four metrics that we have always used year in and year out on these visits have been about security. And the military tells us this cannot be won militarily solely.
Secondly, governance and ending corruption.....
AMANPOUR: I'm just trying to figure out, for instance, you know, what you think is the right thing to do in Afghanistan at the moment. Look, "Time" magazine, this week, has this as its cover -- a girl whose had her nose and ears cut off by the Taliban.
You know, to put it right down to its basics, is America going to abandon the women of Afghanistan, the people of Afghanistan again?
PELOSI: Well, first of all, we're in Afghanistan because it's in our strategic national interests to be so for our own national security, to stop terrorism, to increase global security. The women of Afghanistan have been a priority for many of the women in Congress -- and men, too, but the women have taken a special interest.
Am I the only person who's noticed that the only time the U.S. seems to care about human rights is when we want to rationalize starting a war -- or continuing one?
In a meeting with several reporters this afternoon, House Minority Leader John Boehner outlined the top three measures he'd pursue if he becomes Speaker of the House next Congress to create new jobs. But, those who thought he'd outline specific programs and how they would create jobs were disappointed with a familiar litany of wish-list items: repeal health care reform, eschew climate legislation, and renew the Bush tax cuts.
In other words, repeal a program that largely hasn't yet taken effect; prevent new legislation that is also not in effect; and keep a current tax structure in place. Step four: profit. Or jobs.
I can't tell if Boehner is just this stupid or counting on Americans to be this stupid. Either way, it doesn't reflect well on the Orange One.
Not to get all Shock Doctrine-ish on you or anything, but this interview in the Washington Post got my attention. It represents the very worst that could possibly happen to us all...Republicans winning back the House of Representatives and naming John Boehner as Speaker of the House.
Take a stroll with me through Speaker Boehner's world.
If the GOP were to gain the upper hand, and Boehner were elected as speaker, the question is what he and his party would do with that power. Boehner listed three priorities. First, he said, was a renewed commitment to fiscal discipline -- a test his party badly flunked the last time it was in the majority.
Now, fiscal discipline means different things to different people, but to John Boehner it means something like this with regard to financial regulatory reform:
"This is killing an ant with a nuclear weapon. There are faults in our regulatory system, some in terms of transparency, most as a result of ineffective enforcement by the bureaucracy who have no idea what these financial products look like today.
In Speaker Boehner's world, everything that just took place in our financial markets is the fault of the regulators, not the abusive practices of the industry itself.
This is because Speaker Boehner is the handmaiden and poster child for corporate ownership of politicians. There's a list here of his 2009 Gold donors -- those giving the maximum to his PAC in addition to his campaign committee. Among them: KochPAC, CapitalOne Financial Corp PAC, Bank of America Corp PAC, etc. etc. The list goes on and on.
But let's move on to Speaker Boehner's next agenda item:
Second, he said, was to engage in "an adult conversation with the American people" about the need to rein in entitlement spending.
So...that would be spending for things like Social Security and Medicare? Because, well...it's good to starve seniors and let them die? Who was it who invented death panels again? Oh right...Republicans.
And the final agenda item for Speaker Boehner is a kinder, gentler kind of bipartisanship. Seriously.
And third, he wants to increase bipartisan cooperation in the House.
This is so laughable I'm speechless. Watch the video at the top of this post for an example of the Boehner flavor of bipartisan cooperation. It's a little bitter, and a whole lot hot.
But he does elaborate:
Boehner said there will be plenty of disagreements with the White House if Republicans are in charge of the House. But he added: "A lot of scar tissue's been built up, by both parties, over the last 10 years. It needs to be solved for the long-term good of the country."
Too late for that. The cat is out of the bag and it meows repeatedly: Speaker Boehner wants to cut open the old wound, pour some salt in it, roll it around and then administer poison to the dying patient.
Lest you feel I'm too harsh, I'm glad to report that Speaker Boehner has some kind thoughts for everyone who supported that public option and thinks the health care reform bill stinks without it:
He was explicit about health care. "We believe that the health-care bill needs to be repealed and replaced," he said. Beyond saying Republicans would scrub the budget for wasteful spending, a pledge regularly made and ignored by politicians of both parties, he offered no examples of what programs Republicans would actually cut.
That one needs a translation, too. "Repeal and Replace" really means "Repeal and Die."
And finally, Speaker Boehner wants to remind us all that the nasty rancorous tone of the debate is all Barack Obama's fault.
Boehner also said Obama bears considerable responsibility for the poisoned politics in Washington. "I remember all the conversations with the president about post-partisan politics. He's done nothing to solve that. I remember all the conversations with the president about working in the middle. None of that. It wasn't about the specifics about this, that or whatever. It's about the overall direction he's gone. He has not lived up to his promises."
Fox News Sunday apparently decided that the top news stories of the day were Newt Gingrich's and Laura Bush's new books (in that order, too). What oil spill? What battles in Iraq and Afghanistan? What economy? What Supreme Court nominee? What immigration reform battle? Nah, none of those are important...what Fox News viewers need to learn about is the literary efforts of "super-relevant" Republicans like the disgraced former Speaker of the House and the former First Lady of the least popular president in US history.
But eagle-eyed C&Ler Mugsy noticed something in the Bush home, where Chris Wallace interviewed Laura Bush, that should make the hairs on Glenn Beck's neck stand up on end:
LAURA BUSH IS A MAOIST SCHOLAR!
Look at the bookshelf behind Chris Wallace. Right behind his shoulder appears to be this book. Interestingly, most of the Amazon reviews describe the book as somewhat "sympathetic" to Mao.
Wait a second...you don't suppose that it's not actually Pickles who read the book, do you? That would mean that it belongs to former President George W. "I read three Shakespeares" Bush.
The individuals who make up the Tea Party movement are largely conservative and get their news from Fox; they're generally old and of moderate to low income; and they're fairly convinced that their taxes are going to rise in the next few years, even though they likely won't.
Those conclusions are part of a new study put together by The Winston Group, a conservative-leaning polling and strategy firm run by the former director of planning for former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich. And they provide a telling new window on the political force that has revamped the Republican Party and altered the landscape of the 2010 elections.
In the course of conducting three national surveys of 1,000 registered voters, Winston was able to peg the percentage of the public that identifies itself with the Tea Party at roughly 17 percent. The group pledges that it is independent of any particular party (indeed 28 percent of Tea Party respondents in the Winston survey labeled their affiliation as such). But on pretty much every defining political or demographic issue, the movement lines up with the GOP or conservative alternatives.
Sixty-five percent of Tea Party respondents called themselves "conservative" compared to the 33 percent of all respondents who did the same. Just eight percent of Tea Party respondents said they were "liberal."
Forty-seven percent of Tea Party respondents said that Fox News was either the top or second source of news they turn to, compared with 19 percent of the overall public who said the same thing.
FOX News got the ball rolling and when times are tough, people will side with something that has been marketed as different so their ranks slowly pick up unhappy Americans. I keep hearing teabaggers on TV say that they want to take over the Republican party and get back to their true conservative roots. Does anybody know what that even means? Ronald Reagan raised taxes on Americans more than once:
The first Reagan tax increase came in 1982. By then it was clear that the budget projections used to justify the 1981 tax cut were wildly optimistic. In response, Mr. Reagan agreed to a sharp rollback of corporate tax cuts, and a smaller rollback of individual income tax cuts. Over all, the 1982 tax increase undid about a third of the 1981 cut; as a share of G.D.P., the increase was substantially larger than Mr. Clinton's 1993 tax increase.
Mr. Reagan's second tax increase was also motivated by a sense of responsibility -- or at least that's the way it seemed at the time. I'm referring to the Social Security Reform Act of 1983, which followed the recommendations of a commission led by Alan Greenspan. Its key provision was an increase in the payroll tax that pays for Social Security and Medicare hospital insurance. For many middle- and low-income families, this tax increase more than undid any gains from Mr. Reagan's income tax cuts...
Since Reagan is their Lord and Master, how would he fair in this climate if he raised taxes? Ronald would be vilified by the teabaggers and the entire conservative movement. So what conservative principles are tea partiers talking about when they long for the good old days?
The teabaggers aren't really populists or libertarians although their "ideology" contains a smattering of incomprehensible slogans from both populist and libertarian thinking. They are conservative movement robots, which isn't really ideological at all but rather an emotional outlet for resentment and anger at all the "others" who these adherents believe are either getting ahead at their expense or looking down their elitist noses at them. It's really not about politics at all.
The policies they robotically proclaim all Republicans should follow would only cause their lives more pain, but then as the hardship grew worse---they still would be brainwashed by FOX. Poor Big Business is not given enough respect in the country and the government sucks. In each scenario, Grover Norquist's vision wins out.
The president's first year in office has come to an end, so it's time for new polling to commence. His health-care bill is still stuck in limbo and he's been under siege by conservatives and Fox News the whole time -- all of which has put his favorables down at their lowest point.
But yesterday, Fox News released a new poll which had some interesting results. (It was done by Opinion Dynamics Corp., so there's that too.)
In hypothetical head-to-head matchups, President Obama tops each of the Republican candidates tested.
By 47 percent to 35 percent Obama bests former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. The president has an even wider edge over former Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin (55 percent to 31 percent), and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (53 percent to 29 percent).
Finally, twice as many people say they would vote for Obama (48 percent) as would back a candidate from the Tea Party movement (23 percent).
Even with Fox actively trying to undermine the President, he still destroys the field of candidates at the top of the GOP's list.
Mitt Romney is the closest, but is down by 12 points.
Sarah Palin just came off of an incredible PR blitz with her new book tour and still is down 24 points.
Newt Gingrich and his ever-changing marriages and religions is down by 24 points.
Tea Partiers are down by 25 points.
I'm surprised by these numbers, even if it's a Fox News poll, but it shows that he's still in a decent position as he moves forward. The administration needs to come out swinging in 2010 and going after Wall Street is a good idea, but health care remains a major problem that must be addressed.
The chief of staff for Republican Congressman Tom Reynolds, Kirk Fordham, resigned after questions were raised about his role in the handling of the congressional page scandal, according to Republican sources on Capitol Hill.
Those sources said Fordham, a former chief of staff for Congressman Mark Foley, had urged Republican leaders last spring not to raise questionable Foley e-mails with the full Congressional Page Board, made up of two Republicans and a Democrat.
"He begged them not to tell the page board," said one of the Republican sources.
People familiar with Fordham's side of the story, however, said Fordham was being used as a scapegoat by Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert.
They said Fordham had repeatedly warned Hastert's staff about Foley's "problem" with pages, but little was done.
None of the Republican leaders will answer any questions after they issue their statements:
"I know Denny Hastert. I meet with him a lot. He is a father, teacher, coach who cares about the children of this country," Bush said. "I know that he wants all the facts to come out." Bush took no questions. And as he stepped toward his motorcade, the president ignored a shouted question directly asking whether Hastert should resign.
Bush supports the guy who is supposed to protect the kids. He knew about Foley for a long time and did nothing. That's leadership! Remember Abu Ghraib? It was just a few lowly nobodies that went rogue on us.
Dennis Hastert's office was warned that this was an issue. (According to this morning's interview on CNN, he was warned about it in the context of "campaign issues" which is telling in and of itself.) As the Speaker of the House, the buck stops with him. He can try to rationalize his behavior all he wants, but the fact is that he was told that there was suspicion that a congressman was preying on the teen aged congressional pages and he failed to ensure that it was fully investigated and dealt with. (He allowed the guy to continue to co-sponsor the child abduction and abuse legislation that was signed into law just last July.) Come on....read on