On Applying the Nuclear Option and Comity

Article II Section 2 of the Constitution gives the United States Senate the prerogative to give "Advice and Consent" in confirming Executive Branch nominations, especially the judiciary. For most of the Republic, confirmations of Supreme Court justices were not voted on in a markedly partisan manner. 

The Senate, which liked to consider itself as the world's greatest deliberative body, usually operated in a manner which vetted high court nominees in a conscientiously deferential manner to the President.  For example, Ruth Bader Ginsburg had been chief counsel of the ACLU and a noted feminist attorney, yet she garnered a 93-3 confirmation vote in 1993. 

Admittedly, this was not always the case. President George H.W. Bush's nominee of Clarence Thomas endured a contentious confirmation hearings  in 1991 which he likened to a "high tech lynching for uppity blacks".  

And  of course the vitriolic attacks on Robert Bork, President Ronald Reagan's 1987 pick to fill a Supreme Court opening, resulted in the verb "to Bork" to be added to the Oxford English Dictionary in 2002.  But the adamant opposition from the left stemmed, however peripherally, to nitpicking "flaws" in the nominees.

Much of the comity that the Senate enjoyed was due to Cloture Rule (Senate Rule XXII) which was instituted in 1917.  In order to end debate on a filibuster, three-fifths of Senators (today 60 votes) is required.  Applying that to judicial nominees, Presidents often picked less stridently partisan or controversial candidates, as some Senate Minority votes were needed in order to advance to the confirmation vote.  

Former Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) found this 3/5ths Cloture requirement to be inconvenient in his effort to aid President Barack Obama in packing the judiciary (particularly changing the balance in the 4th Circuit, a.k.a. "The Rocket Docket").  Thus, in 2013 Reid exercised "The Nuclear Option" which abrogated Senate Rule XXII for judicial confirmations save Supreme Court nominees. 

 Reid was warned on the Senate floor by then Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) that you will regret using the nuclear option.   In the 115th Congress, when Senate Democrats became openly obstructionistic about any nominations made by President Donald Trump, Majority Leader McConnell extended the "nuclear option" to include Supreme Court nominees, which resulted in Neil Gorsuch being confirmed by a 54-45 vote.

After Justice Anthony Kennedy's announced retirement from the Nation's High Court, Democrats have campaigned for the Senate to delay confirmation hearings for the SCOTUS opening until after the 2018 midterm elections.  Their facile rationalization is that Republicans ought to follow the same standard used to deny Merritt Garland a confirmation hearing in 2016 because it was an election year.  Of course, this partisan plea ignores that it was a Presidential election year and had over 70 years of precedent.  In addition, Democrats are not in the majority and they set the agenda. Elections do have consequences.  

So does changing and exploiting rules.  Democrats might have some gravitas to their suggestion to stall SCOTUS confirmation hearing until after the midterms if they were not already slow walking nearly all Trump confirmations.   Senate rules allow for 30 hours of debate on each nominee.  Democrats have been routinely requiring the entire 30 hours of debate, which would mean that President Trump's picks could receive senatorial "advise and consent" in nine years. So the threat that Democrats will further slow walk Senate proceedings in retaliation or to forestall a SCOTUS confirmation vote is meaningless. 

The recalcitrant response of Democrats should be a cue to Majority Leader McConnell on how to react to the diminution of comity in the Senate.  If Democrats are going to slow walk everything in retaliation or retribution for the Senate leadership for exercising their "advice and consent" on Supreme Court nominees in a timely manner, then keep them in session.  McConnell already effectively cancelled the traditional long summer recess so they can meet their budgetary duties. So they get to spend the dog days of summer on Capital Hill and enjoy the swampy weather in the District of Calamity (sic).

But the lack of comity and the need for elected officials to do their job might mean spending more time on Capitol Hill.  Since Democrats seem to relish filibusters and slowing the process down, the Majority Leader should change how filibutsters are treated.  Instead of the failure of a cloture vote resulting in the legislation (or the nomination) being pulled, let the debate continue.  If legislators want to invoke "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" and talk until they are hoarse and drop from exhaustion, that is their prerogative.  But just as the nuclear option changed things in unexpected ways, tinkering with the filibuster might have adverse effects on Senate minority rights in the future.

Moreover, so that the Senate is not simply the place where legislation goes to and dies, remain in session through October instead of taking the election break.  From an objective standpoint, they will be doing their jobs (instead of concentrating on getting re-elected).  Politically, this hurts Senate Democrats (as they have 25 of 33 seats up, including 10 in states where Mr. Trump won).  And it might make obstructionism less appealing and allow incumbents to give comity a chance.

Senator Ed Markey on Reversing the Nuclear Option

Senator Markey's promise to overturn the nuclear option is a marked departure from the partisan gamesmanship strategy that Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has been using against the Trump Administration. 

It should be noted, however, that Senator Markey's (D-MA) anti- Nuclear Option promise is a chimera.  The vow of overturning the nuclear option precedent anticipates the same conditions that former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) when the Reid Rule blew up Senate precedent by changing the rules mid session and making the upper chamber a majority rules body. 

Considering the leftward swing of the Democrat Party and number of vulnerable Democrat Senators in the 2018 election cycle, Markey's promise rings as true as the Obamacare: "If you like your doctor than you can keep him'. 

Senator Jeff Merkley on the "Nuclear Option"

As if more than a handful of vulnerable Senate Democrats would allow for a confirmation vote of Neil Gorsuch.

It is dubious that the public applies this legitimacy standard to the packed DC Circuit, which then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid first used the nuclear option.  Hence it is not as much the "nuclear option" as the clarification of the Reid Rule.  

Some may justly argue that it is the Constitutional Option, as cloture is nowhere in America's organic organizational documents, but merely a modern Senate innovation (first implemented in 1917 and modified in 1975).

Once again, thank you Dirty Harry Reid.  Now it will be easier for President Trump (and future Chief Executives) to nominate and confirm Justices who are not mysteries nor necessarily amenable to the political Senate minority of the time.

Primary Concerns for Senate Democrats Supporting Gorsuch Cloture Vote

Now that they are relegated to minority political status in the District of Calamity, the progressive wing of the Democrat party feel free to impose purity tests and try to effectively take over the party.

One of the litmus tests for a Senate Democrat to show their loyalty towards liberalism is to oppose President Trump's choice for the Supreme Court, Judge Neil Gorsuch.  

Senate Democrats may stew over a "stolen" SCOTUS pick, because the Senate Majority in the 114th Congress refused to hold hearings and scuttled former President Obama's lame duck Supreme Court pick Merrick Garland. This Senate Advice and Consent through inaction followed a 70 year precedent of not confirming SCOTUS picks in the last year of an Administration so as to let voters decide.

However some Democrats are so obstreperous that they will not meet with Judge Gorsuch, like Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY).  Those who consented to meet Judge Gorsuch have been charmed by him and his impeccable legal credentials.

Liberal advocacy groups like Credo Action felt emboldened by Schumer's antipathy approach thus they warned wavering Senate Democrats that if they so much even consented to a Cloture vote for Judge Gorsuch that they will face primary opposition in the 2018 cycle.

So Democrats opposed Republicans effectively filibustering Garland through a no vote yet they want to do the same thing to Judge Gorsuch.  As Chris Plante is wont to say, if it wasn't for double standards, liberals would not have any at all.  Ironically, filibustering will be futile thanks to the legacy of  former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) who invoked the nuclear option in 2013.  Now all the current Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) needs to do is expand the rule change in medias res to include Supreme Court nominations. 

From an objective standpoint, Democrats threatening to primary vulnerable Senate Democrats to just allow a vote for a Supreme Court Associate Justice seems counter-intuitive.  The Scalia replacement would not drastically change the balance of the court, so why come out with guns blazing against your own for a goal which is note a game changer.  

Although Democrats only need to garner three net seats to regain control of the Senate, they face a tough election cycle in 2018 with 23 of 33 seats up.  Incumbents have a much easier time fund raising and winning general elections, so why take out your own (even if they stray from the party line on some issues)?  Furthermore, ten of the Senate races are Democrats in states that voted strongly for President Trump.  Threatening to primary Democrat incumbents pushes them further to the left, which was not were the vox populi seems to be in those states.

If opposition from the left seems too strident, some incumbents like Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)  might conclude that the grass is greener on the other side of the aisle. Even if they do not politically defect, they may be emboldened to vote their conscience to keep their integrity or burnish their independence from a progressive purge to keep their seat.

It would seem prudent for progressives to not play hardball on this Supreme Court nomination but fight like hell if a senior liberal Associate Justice (like 83 year old Ruth Ginsburg or 78 year old Stephen Breyer) or majority maker 80 year old Anthony Kennedy decided to retire.  But it seems that progressives do not want to leave any powder in reserve for such a contingency.  

Even though objections to the Scalia replacement were packaged as being objections to Garland's no vote or automatically opposing President Trump's pick, it seems that progressives are concerned that reversing Roe v. Wade and throwing the adjudication of abortion back to the states is at stake. 

Smart SCOTUS Oppo Strategerie (sic)

As sagacious of a strategist Committee for Justice President Curt Levey may be, it seems that Democrats in the District of Calamity have taken a different tact.

Senator Jeff Markey has declared that there must be payback for the 114th Congress not approving lame duck former President Obama's pick of Merrick  Garland.  Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer )D-NY) has declared that he will not work with President Trump unless he utterly does the Democrats' bidding.

In years past, protestations of non-cooperation might have caused Senate Republicans to buckle and moderate.  But thanks to former Senator Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and the Reid Rule, cooperation for cloture on appointments is now moot.

Democrats may bluster that only needing a majority was not intended to be for Supreme Court nominees, but that is after the fact dicta.  Per Hugh Hewitt and Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), the Reid Rule is about the Senate only requiring a majority to change the rules mid-session. Besides, Reid himself intimated that he showed his Democrat Senate colleagues how to steamroll the GOP with this rule, even for High Court picks Even liberal Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) admits that the filibuster is no longer an emergency brake on nominations.

Under normal circumstances, a newly elected President has little opposition to his first Supreme Court nominee, especially early in his first term.  But these are not ordinary times.  Democrats are wont to hyperventilate about anything that the Trump Administration does, and seem happy to escalate any altercation to the extreme.  Democrats have sought to slow walk Trump Administration confirmation hearings, going so far as to not show up at Senate Committee Hearing votes.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has been chary to confirm that Republicans will invoke what was once called "the nuclear option", but he has been steadfast in assuring the public that Trump Administration will be confirmed.  The same is true regarding  President  Trump's pick for the Supreme Court.

The dangera that Democrats have in protesting so vehemently to everything in the early Trump Administration and calling supporters out to the ramparts is three fold.

 First, they risk over-exhausting their partisans.  You can only cry "the sky is falling" only so often before it loses its desired effect.

Secondly, Democrats are not picking their battles wisely.  It is not only the incoherence of opposing everything, but in going to the mat for losing causes.  Because of the Reid Rule, President Trump will get his Cabinet appointments and most likely the first Supreme Court pick.  By fighting so hard on the nominations, it may serve to demoralize their partisans.

Thirdly, the hyperventilating opposition may play well for the progressive base of the Democrat Party but it may serve to alienate white, working class Democrats who voted for Trump in 2016 on positions and personnel with which they agree.

Historically, Democrats do not turn out in mid-term elections.  In the 2018 election cycle, Democrats have 23 seats up in the Senate, including in states which voted for Trump.  Such strident opposition, epitomized by an obstructionist approach to Trump's first Supreme Court pick (even before he is announced) may solidify a one time "what have you got to lose" vote to a realigning "my party has left me" metanoia, thereby making  Blue Dogs and DC Democrats politically endangered species. 

The Legacy of Dirty Harry and the Reid Rule on Senate Filibusters

A legacy of former Senate Majority Leader  Harry Reid (D-NV) was the effective elimination of the confirmation filibuster.  

Under the Constitution, it is the Senate's duty to confirm Executive and Judicial Branch appointments.  Senate rules allowed for confirmations with mere majorities, but needed to obtain 60 votes to cut off debate (Cloture) and preclude a filibuster.  The Cloture vote was intended to prevent endless obstructionism while still giving the minority some say in the proceedings of the Upper Chamber of Congress.

Needing to get enough votes for cloture was an incentive for Republicans to select more moderate appointees which required Senate consent.  But such Senate niceties stopped political steamrolling by Majorities who wished to exercise their unadulterated will.

When the Obama Administration sought to pack the Court of Appeals for DC (aka the DC Circuit), which is the court of authority for regulatory bodies, it ran into trouble when its candidates might not have received the requisite support for a Cloture Vote.  So then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, exercised "The Nuclear Option".  Exercising the Nuclear Option had been hotly debated in the preceding decade, but then Senate Majority Leader  Bill Frist (R-TN) opted not to circumvent tradition. 

Through Parliamentary legerdemain, Reid established a precedent in which he said that all judicial nominees, save Justices of the Supreme Court, would be considered on majority votes and did not have to pass the Cloture Vote threshold.  

The Reid Rule was great when one's party is in control of the Senate and the White House. But in 2017, President Donald Trump will occupy the White House and Republicans have a two seat majority in the Senate.  Incoming Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer thinks that he can stymie the Trump Administration through the advice and consent clause as well as any Supreme Court nominations which do not represent progressive Democrat values.  However, Schumer may well rue the Reid rule legacy from Dirty Harry Reid. 

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Salem Radio host Hugh Hewitt had an informative colloquy on the Reid Rule.

 Republicans may not moderate their choices for positions which need to be confirmed by the Senate.  Despite Harry Reid's contention that the "Reid Rule" excludes Supreme Court nominees, it is contented that avoiding Cloture for a Supreme Court nomination would simply be a second application of the Reid Rule precedent.

Harry Reid on FBI Director Comey

Perhaps Senate Minority Leader Reid is getting advice from his imaginary friends again. 

Benghazi Committee Chair Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC 4th) had a curt quip that marveled at how a Mormon could seem like he is on drugs for proposing such rubbish. 

Harry Reid on Presidential Appointments

On Congressional Kabuki Show of Show Votes, Spending Sprees and Shutdowns

Last week, Majority Leader McConnell (R-KY) engineered passage of a Continuing Resolution to keep the government funded for the first two months of FY2016.  To prevent the possibility of a shutdown due to riders which might derail cloture, McConnell borrowed a trick from his predecessor Senator Harry Reid (D-NV) and he "filled the tree" by precluding any such amendments to be considered thus a clean CR.  This allowed the must pass legislation to easily achieve a 77-19 majority.

Republican Presidential hopeful Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) was truly displeased with not being able to effectively attach a Defund Planned Parenthood Amendment on an otherwise clean CR.  Cruz took to the Senate floor for an hour to educate the public about show votes, spending sprees and shutdown threats.

In today's Washington, there are three kinds of votes. There are, number one, show votes.. Votes that are brought up largely to placate the voters where the outcome is fore –ordained,, where most Republicans will vote one way, Democrats will vote the other, Republicans will lose, and the conservatives who elected Republican majorities in both houses are supposed to be thrilled that they have been patted on the head and given their show vote that was destined to lose. We had a vote like that in recent weeks on Planned Parenthood. Leadership told us: ‘You should be thrilled. We voted on it. What else do you want?’ We voted on it in a context where it would never happen. And indeed it didn't.

 The second kind of vote are votes that simply grow government, that dramatically expand spending, expand corporate welfare, and those votes, Mr. President, those votes pass. Because you get a bipartisan coalition of Republican leadership and Democrats, both of whom are convinced that career politicians will get reelected if they keep growing and growing government, and in particular, handing out corporate welfare to giant corporations. Oh, boy, if you’ve got the lobbyists on K street pushing for something, you can get 60, 70, 80 votes in this chamber because Republican leadership loves it, and Democrats are always willing to grow government.  

And then there's a third kind of vote. Votes on must-pass legislation. In an era when one side, the Democratic Party, is adamantly committed to continuing down this path that is causing so many millions of Americans to hurt, must-pass votes are the only votes that have real consequence in this chamber. They typically fall into one of three categories – either continuing resolution, or an omnibus appropriation bill, or a debt ceiling increase. Each of those three are deemed must-pass votes, and if you actually want to change law, those are the only hopes of doing so. But I mentioned before you have got one side that has preemptively surrendered. Republican leadership has said: ‘We will never, ever, ever shut down the government.’ And suddenly, President Obama understands the easy key to winning every battle. He simply has to utter the word ‘shutdown,’ and Republican leadership runs to the hills.

 Even after this stirring speech which stuck it to the Cocktail Party in the District of Calamity (sic), people not Between the Beltways still have difficulty fathoming this truth.

As  Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) is rising in the polls, out come the attack dogs.  One of the charges is that Senator Rubio missed a crucial vote on Cloture, which could have defunded Planned Parenthood.  While Senator Rubio will not get a gold star for his attendance record while in the United States Senate, a clean C.R. precluded serious consideration of defunding Planned Parenthood. The trick was to get  a Defund Planned Parenthood Amendment attached to must pass legislation.

The highway bill in July was one such vehicle.  It would have forced President Obama to stop funding all federal highways to save funding for Planned Parenthood.  But Leader McConnell would never allow the power of the purse to force the hand of this President, so he arranged for a stand alone Defund Planned Parenthood bill, which inevitably could not gain enough votes for cloture, but establishment politicians could claim "We tried but the votes weren't there.".  Hence a show vote.

Now if a Defund Planned Parenthood Amendment were attached to a budget bill, the Byrd Rule quashes cloture so it could pass on a majority vote in the Senate. But that would require Republican leadership to have a backbone.

Should the DC GOP Change Their Symbol from an Elephant to a Turtle?

After the Iran Nuclear Deal failed to break Cloture, Senator Mitch McConnell did media rounds proclaiming that opponents may have lost a short-term battle but we won the argument.




True, only 21% of Americans support President Obama's Executive Agreement capitulation to the nuclear ambitions of the Islamic Republic of Iran, but it seems that it will go into effect anyways. The Corker/Cardin Bill turned Senate Treaty ratification on its head.  Instead of requiring 2/3rds of senators to approve (67 votes), it allowed the deal to go thru with the support of only 34 Senators.  Showing such special courage, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would not even let the Iran Nuke Deal go to a vote, but sought to let it come into effect anyways with 41 votes against Cloture (cutting off debate).  That way, waivering Democrat Senators could claim that they did not actually support the deal, when their sin of omission was to not act when they could to kill it.

The Republican Majority also showed a troubling lack of courage and conviction.  While Corker/Cardin may have been unwise (or even unconstitutional), the LAWs provisions were not even followed.  President Obama was bound by Corker/Cardin to give the Congress all information (including secret side agreements) pertaining to the Iran Nuke Deal within four days of concluding the agreement.  That July 21st deadline passed and we continue to hear more about withheld information and side treaties.  Yet the the United States Senate voted on the Iran Deal and the Senate Majority Leader has the temerity to say that "we" won.  At least the House was prodded into acknowledging that Corker/Cardin was not followed before voting against the Deal.

Majority "Leader" McConnell shows a troubling lack of leadership.  He argues that the Senate can not put together veto proof majorities, so he will not invest political capital in lots of legislation, be it the Iran Nuke Deal or Defunding Planned Parenthood.  In all likelihood neither vote would be blessed by President Obama, but it would mean taking a stand on vital issues.  Sometimes, public pressure can sway an obstinate politician.  Even if it is unsuccessful, it differentiates parties instead of having a District of Calamity Cocktail Party where party labels do not matter.

It is troubling that Senator McConnell thinks that "we won" for the Iran Nuke Deal, when this procedure allows the mullahs in Iran to get $150 Billion in frozen assets to fund their unrenounced terrorist ambitions. McConnell thinks this will be a great campaign issue. Really? Playing politics with American National Security?  Kind of sounds like what establishment Republicans did with Obamacare, promising repeal and staging show votes but never taking a hard stand.

Is this leadership which the Republican base really wants? Cocktail Party Quislings who say one thing on the hustings and act another way on Capitol Hill. Perhaps the Between the Beltways GOP should change their symbol from the Elephant who always remembers to the Turtle which recoils from any threat.

Senator Ted Cruz on the Washington Party

In a rare Sunday session held to consider the must pass Highway Bill, Republican Majority Leader Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), called up an amendment to revive the Export Import Bank and filled the tree to prevent any other amendments, aside from a sisyphean symbolic vote to repeal Obamacare (which, as expected, failed to reach cloture).

Senator Ted Cruz' (R-TX)  floor speech on Sunday Bloody Sunday, the junior Senator from Texas had better hope that the campaign trail keeps him busy as he should not expected any invites to Cocktail Parties in the District of Calamity (sic).

Cruz's cri-de-couer floor speech may not help him in the current Grand Old Party Senate Cloakroom, but may curry favor from anti-establishment supporters on the campaign hustings.  Assuming the Cruz remains in the Senate, he may be standing alone or with several new practical conservative colleagues. 

Netanyahu: “The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons.”

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu made his third address before a Joint Session of Congress to in order speak about existential threats against his nation which stem from the prospective Iran Nuclear Deal. 

The Obama Administration expressed offense at the Netanyahu speech because House Speaker John Boehner broke protocol by not having not cleared the invitation with the Obama White House (never mind the constitution). The ire against the Israeli P.M.'s remarks then shifted that it was too close to the Israeli elections, even though National Security Adviser Susan Rice recently railed against Netanyahu for undermining US/Israel relations.   Some 56 Congressional Democrats boycotted Netanyahu's speech. Valerie Jarrett insisted that President Obama was too busy to watch our only Democratic ally in the Middle East's speech. 

These petulant politicos missed a 40 minute speech which had the feel of a State of the Union address, but with substance arguing against making a bad deal with a revolutionary, expansionistic, jihadic regime with an earned bad reputation.  

While Prime Minister Netanyahu displayed extraordinary graciousness to Democrats (and had a shout out to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Bibi underlined underpublicized kindnesses which President Obama has shown towards Israel, the speech was a methodical public policy schooling of the perils of bad deals with Persians.  Shortly before he delivered his remarks, the White House warned Netanyahu not to reveal state secrets about the Iran talks. Hence, Mr. Netanyahu noted that he was using public sources for his citations so people could Google it.

Mr. Netanyahu also thanked Congress for its robust support for their alliance in a rough neighborhood over the years.  To illustrate how instrumental the American-Israeli relationship has been, Netanyahu noted: "This Capitol Dome helped build our Iron Dome" (the missile system which protected Israeli civilians from random rocket terror during the latest military campaign by Palestinian militant terrorism from HAMAS. 

Netanyahu substantiated the ignomy of the revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran and reminded people that spreading jihad is part of the current Iranian constitution. While Washington seems to have been concerned about ISIS's atrocious antics, Mr. Netanyahu opined that Iranian intentions toward crafting it's own caliphate is no better as the are both competing for the crown of militant Islam.  Thus: "The enemy of  your enemy is your enemy."  

Prime Minister Netanyahu argued against making a bad deal with Tehran rather than no deal at all.  Netanyahu detailed how a deal on the Iran Nukes would not be a farewell to arms but a farewell to arms control in the Middle East.  The Prime Minister invoked U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry's analysis that Iran could eventually gain nuclear weapons because the prospective agreement does not require destruction of centrofuses and could quickly be ramped up after an agreement.  Bibi quipped that Tehran is adroit at playing "hide and cheat" with weapons inspectors.  Besides, inspectors just document but do not stop cheating. Furthermore, the Iranian missile program is not covered in the nuclear deal, so the Islamic Republic could quickly propel their inchoate arms to Europe or even America. 

Netanyahu rallied the Congressional crowd by exhorting: "We must all stand together to stop Iran's march of conquest, subjugation and terror."  This was coupled with the wisdom "The greatest danger facing our world is the marriage of militant Islam with nuclear weapons."

The Lamestream Media has been lax at explaining the nuances and prospective pitfalls of the Iranian Nuclear Talks.  Netanyahu's speech brought these issues to the forefront of public consideration.  Moreover, the warm reception which the Israeli Prime Minister was received by Congress highlights the strength of US-Israeli relations, in the face of an Obama Administration which seems intent to punish its friends and rewarding its enemies in a tough neighborhood of the world. In arguing against the existential threat against Israel, the Prime Minister underlined that it will act alone in necessary but that "I know that Israel does not stand alone-- America stands with Israel."

Barack Obama on DHS Funding

  

 During the lame duck session of the 112th Congress, House Republicans fully funded FY 2015 budget, with the exception of Department of Homeland Security, in which a short term continuing resolution was applied to allow for a rider which would not Congressionally fund President Obama's Executive Action on illegal immigration.

 In the new 113th Congress, Senate Democrats refused to allow cloture to debate the DHS bill, lest the funding bill pass on majority terms.  The Obama White House and lackeys in the Lamestream Media and Senate Democrats are striving to frame Republicans for being obstructionists for not rubber stamping Mr. Obama's extra-constitutional effective amnesty. 

 Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has suggested bifurcating the Executive Amnesty issue from DHS funding.  But this legislative legerdemain was acceptable to Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) only if House Speaker John Boehner acceded to Obama's will.  So far, Speaker Boehner holds the attitude that Senate Democrats ought to "get off their asses" and vote on the House bill. 

The GOP opponents seek to claim that Republicans will endanger the nation due to not funding DHS's $38 Billion budget. Alas, 80% of DHS's 240,000 employees are essential workers, who are required to report to work without a guaranteed pay check (even though all workers have routinely been paid after a budget standoff).  So security should not be an issue, even though the Obama Administration has been hyping the Boko Haram and al Shabob threat on the Mall of America and other Jewish owned shopping centers (but this has nothing to do with certain religions). 

So now the Obama Administration's tact has shifted to hardball politics.  During a townhall meeting telecast on MSNBC and Telemundo, President Obama dared the Republicans to pass the House bill, which would merit another Obama veto.   

  

 May the majorities in Congress stick to their principles and not quickly fold to a passive aggressive bully chief executive.  No matter what, the Lamestream Media is ready to repudiate Republicans. But the shutdown is so targeted that the public won't shed tears over the World War II monument being shut down as during the Flying Flip shutdown of October 2013.

h/t: Bruce Plante

Readjusting Harry Reid's RX

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recently declared that "The border is secure". On FNC's Special Report with Brett Baier, Dr. Charles Krauthammer commented that Reid had gone off his meds.

Although Dr. Krathammer is a trained clinical psychologist who helped define secondary mania, he was not offering a long distance diagnosis of the Senate Majority Leader, but offering an incredulous exclamation about how willingly blind to reality Reid seems to be.

Harry Reid on the Redskins

In the wake of NBA Commissioner Adam Silver's swift and severe punishment of L.A. Clippers' owner Donald Sterling's racist rant made in private, politicians rushed to jump in on the Politically Correct civic circus. 

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) used some of his floor time on the US Senate to rail against Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder's intransigence about changing the team name.  

When Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson (D-Sacramento) crowed about "what sports can do", he gloated that President Obama and Vice President Biden expressed support for doing something to rectify the situation.

What form of polity is a government which nudges businesses to order society to their desired goals?  With the myriad of problems which face the Federal government and the Senate's inability to act, the Majority Leader ought to concentrate on legislating rather than dictating sports team nicknames. 

Dirty Harry Reid -- How the West Wasn't Won

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) recently made headlines when he declared that those protesting on the Bundy Ranch in southern Nevada were "domestic terrorists" for standing up to the hard nosed tactics of the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) because they did not obey the law by paying taxes and fees.

Yet Senator Reid emphatically pushes for immigration reform to take "undocumented workers" out of the shadows despite their occupying America without the color of law.




Liberal logic is so seductive-- ignore some flouting of the law by newcomers yet demonize longtime long time lease holders of federal grazing rights with the dogs of war and painting them as domestic terrorists.

It seems that it depends upon who's scratching your back as to how the Senate Majority leader stands on obeying the law.   Who's scratching your back, Dirty Harry?

Barack Obama on Football

President Barack Obama gave an extended interview to David Remnick of the New Yorker.  Commenting on the Miami Dolphins-Carolina Panthers game in the background on Air Force One, The President responded to a question concerning the controversy over concussions and football by conceding that he would not let his son play pro football. Mr. Obama  is a big sports fan thus he  begrudgingly blessed other playing pro football as he chewed on some Nicorette gum. 

Two curiosities about Mr. Obama's throwaway football comments.  Firstly, Barack Obama does not have a son, despite demogoging that his son would look like Travon Martin during the George Zimmerman trial.  Secondly, Mr. Obama tried to cast aspersions about individuals accepting risk, like smokers and football players.  

Obama's risk acceptance analogy is tenuous .   Daniel Flynn's recent book "The War on Football: Saving America's Sport" debunks the supposedly unique cranial dangers of football.  Statistically, cheerleaders are more prone to concussions than football players.  Moreover, science can not make a causal connection between football and CTE (Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy).  This factual discrepancy could be cured if one were both intellectually curious as well as being intellectually honest.

But if President Obama honestly felt that people should be free to do what they choose, as long as they understand the risks--then why are almost all Americans being forced into Obamacare approved health plans? Perhaps the Little Sisters of the Poor do not need and feel morally compelled to not pay for contraception, sterilization and abortifacients?   They must comply or they risk ruinous fines unless they comply.  

The other odd phenomenon is Mr. Obama's persistent allusions to a hypothetical scion.  Having an imaginary friend is a trait which most people grow out of in  adolescence . However, Harry Reid has justified Obamacare and the Senate Majority Leader smeared GOP Presidential nominee Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) based on the word of an unseen friend. 

Dennis Miller had a more charitable tongue-in-cheek  take on Barack Obama's football prohibition for his "son".

Obamascare Video -- Haunting the District of Calamity

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) continued his campaign to #MakeDCListen by releasing a video which tells the scary truths about Obamacare.





The video "ObamaScare--It's Coming to a Mailbox Near You" is remarkable for several reasons.  Cruz did not end his efforts to oppose Obamacare after his 21 hour plus hour quasi-filibuster from late September.  Nor is Senator Cruz taking his cues from Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who cut a backroom deal with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)  for a short-term Continuing Resolution and Debt Ceiling Hike with no quid pro quo.  Moreover, McConnell promised not to use the prospects of another government shut down as the next deadline approaches.

Through this ObamaScare video, Cruz continues to point out the real world consequences of Obamacare implementation, specifically skyrocketing premiums for lesser coverage and people losing their current health insurance.

Senator Cruz is capitalizing on social media to get the message out, rather than relying upon the liberal elite media (a.k.a. the Lamestream Media).  The message is timely, full of pop reference (horror movie motifs) and is well produced.  This ObamaScare video seems more like infotainment which people want to share.

This ObamaScare social media strategy is in stark contrast to  the blitz of bludgeoning gubernatorial ads for Virginia Democrat Terry McAliffe (D-VA) which have been blanketing the airwaves between-the-beltways.  While these patently political hit pieces may lower the female vote for Ken Cuccinelli (R-VA), but it is not a message which viewers are eager to share.

In the District of Calamity (sic), it is not unusual to see multi-media ads throughout the year about legislative initiatives.  These ad often run on news and politically oriented radio stations, some local segments of cable news channels and early evening local access time.  Normally, the commercials are produced by monied interests who are using wholesale marketing to achieve their objectives by ginning up constituent calls.  What is different about Cruz's media blitz is that it is a Senator at the helm to generate public support on legislation.

In the run up to the fiscal new year, Senator Cruz inspired radio ads ran on conservative talk radio.  In addition, Cruz made many media appearances to market his message. Now Cruz is continuing to share the public policy landscape through viral social media.


Those who haunt Cocktail Parties in the District of Calamity should not be scared of the fancy Halloween decorations in Georgetown.  The lead title to the ObamaScare title is "Brought to you by Congress". Cocktail Party types should be frightened of a back bencher who they thought was the walking dead after his filibuster fizzled.  They thought Cruz could be buried by backroom deals and bad press.  Yet the ObamaScare viral video shows that he may rise again and be more powerful than before.


The Cocktail Party crowd should be afraid, very afraid.  But not of a
zombie attack between the beltways, as Zombies feed on brains and they know better than to feast in the District of Calamity (sic). But at some time, they will have to return to their home districts.  At that point, Katey bar the door.

The Sham of Senate Civility

After the attempted assassination of former Representative Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ 8th), there were calls for civility in political discourse.  In the aftermath of the Tucson shooting,Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said:

Being more mindful of the weight of our words always helps. We have much more to gain than to lose from civility and discretion. …

Some may be inspired by the town halls of two Augusts ago. Others by the heated election debates. Some may be motivated by the conversation that started after Arizona. And many will seek more civility simply because it’s the right thing to do. Whatever the reason, I hope the turn to more responsible rhetoric is more than empty rhetoric. I intend to do my part.

But what Democrats really meant by civility seems to be to silence their ideological opponents with the cudgel of civility via the Lamestream Media without moderating their raucous rhetoric or correcting their faux pas. 

A recent example of this incongruity between rhetoric and reality was Senator Reid's recent call for civil discourse on the Senate floor.  The Senate Democrat Majority Leader had called House Speaker John Boehner a coward for not standing up to anarchists in his own party who Reid implied precipitated the Federal Government shutdown.   Reid also derided his colleague Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) as the "very junior Senator from Texas"  who was acting as the "Joint House Speaker."

Yet Senator Reid lectured the Senate about decorum:

We all have to understand that these rules create a little bit of distance so senators are more likely to debate ideas and less likely to talk about personalities. And if we do that, we maintain a more civil decorum as a result. So I bring this matter to the attention of senators because we've fallen out of this habit. It's gotten worse the last month or so.
 

To be fair, Senator Reid kind of apologized for his harsh words by intoning:  "Some recent stories have even suggested that the speaker is keeping the government shut down because I hurt his feelings. If that's true, I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings."  

So it's OK to capture headlines and slander your opponents, and then give a tentative mea culpa "if I hurt your feelings"?  Where does someone go to get their reputation back?

Reid advocated not mentioning other Senators by their first names and addressing their colleagues in the third person.  This Senate Speak, a District of Calamity (sic) patois which Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has mastered  forces the speaker to call enemies "My Friends" before rhetorically excoriating them.  No wonder why so many ordinary people are turned off by politics. 

Senator Cruz has been the target of Democrats derision in the Federal Government Shutdown fight.  Cruz gave a short floor speech which exposed this Sham of Senate Civility to conceal political perfidy.

There has been a concerted effort in the Lamestream Media to discredit Ted Cruz as just advancing his own presidential ambitions by prominently fighting for defunding Obamacare.  This scathing critique comes from Democrats as well as Cocktail Party Republicans who understand the earnestness of Tea Party conservatives who threaten their cushy situations.  Establishment Republicans are content to go along to get along, cast symbolic votes which they can sell to their primary voters but do not mean anything.

While Cruz may leverage his prominence in the Shutdown fight for the 2016 Presidential race, he is also living up to his role to represent constituents who are fed up with the status quo and the meaningless games politicos in Washington play rather than fight for their ideals. Civilly telling the truth is a rarity between the beltways these days. 

It is beyond the pale of propriety to characterize Tea Party types like Senator Cruz as anarchists for standing up for the Constitution. But the hostility towards such honest oratory from Tea Party politicians is revealing.  

 In the face of totalitarian influences across the globe, George Orwell opined:  "The further a society drifts away from the truth,  the more it will hate those that speak it."  In a similar vein, the author of 1984 also  wrote: "During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." 

Maybe Senator Reid's crie-de-coeur will be heard on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue, where outrageous Obama incivility now seems to be an everyday occurrence