"October is a fine and dangerous season in America"
October 1, 2013 4:07 PM Subscribe

Happy Political Clusterf*ck Day (U.S.)! In one corner: the first federal government shutdown since 1996, born of the House GOP/Tea Party faction's crusade to delay, defund, and destroy Obamacare (and the Democratic Senate and President's resolve to not do that). "Continuing resolutions" have ping-ponged between the two houses, fighting over language to cancel healthcare reform (plus a few other items, such as the implementation of Mitt Romney's entire economic agenda). National parks are closed, contractors are hamstrung, and 800,000 federal workers furloughed until Speaker Boehner drops the "Hastert Rule" and passes a bill the other branches can agree to. In the other corner, heedless of the chaos (though not without glitches of its own): the official rollout of the Affordable Care Act and its state insurance exchanges. The portal at Healthcare.gov is your one-stop shop for browsing, comparing, and purchasing standardized, regulated insurance coverage with premium rebates, guaranteed coverage, and expanded Medicaid for the poor (in some states). A crazy day, overall -- but peanuts compared to what might happen if the debt ceiling is breached in 16 days.

Further reading and resources:

Government Shutdown

USA.gov: What's affected by a Government Shutdown?
USA Today: 66 questions and answers about the government shutdown (warning: autoplay video)
The Guardian: Government Shutdown: What's Closed? What's Open?
WIC support for moms, babies threatened during shutdown, though other food programs may fare better for the moment
Mother Jones: How John Boehner Could Lose His Speakership
Prospect.org Op/Ed: This Madness will Never End
Recent update: House Republicans offer piecemeal funding bills; Obama threatens veto - WaPo liveblog

Affordable Care Act

Healthcare.gov Guides - All Topics
Consumer Reports comprehensive guides: HealthLawHelper.org - Insurance rankings of 987 plans - How to find a "best value" plan - In-depth feature from the print edition
Understanding Obamacare: Politico's Guide to the Affordable Care Act [Download the full 112-page PDF]
What if my state isn't expanding Medicaid?
Politifact: Top 16 myths about the health care law
State exchanges profiles from The Kaiser Foundation and The Commonwealth Fund

Debt Ceiling

The Government Shutdown Versus the Debt Ceiling: Why the Oct. 17 deadline for hitting our debt limit is so much scarier than the government shutdown.
The Debt-Ceiling Showdown is the Fight of Obama's Life
NYT Op/Ed: Our Outlaw President? Obama Should Ignore the Debt Ceiling
The White House remains skeptical of a unilateral move, while Obama insists he "will not negotiate" over America's creditworthiness and that the "perpetual cycle of brinksmanship [...] has to end"
The previous debt limit near-crisis on MetaFilter

posted by Rhaomi (2185 comments total) 206 users marked this as a favorite

Let's throw in Bachmann and Cruz, while we're at it
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:15 PM on October 1, 2013

I prefer the view from 10,000 miles away.
posted by Nomyte at 4:15 PM on October 1, 2013 [13 favorites]

A really good person to follow for this is Robert Costa, a writer for the National Review. He has enough connections with all the main Republican players to get an inside view of what's going on. Mainly that it's been a slap fight between the establishment Republicans and the Tea Party.
posted by zabuni at 4:15 PM on October 1, 2013 [13 favorites]

Our Outlaw President? Obama Should Ignore the Debt Ceiling

Even if he does, someone will sue and then nobody will know whether the bonds issued under this rationale are "real" or not until it's adjudicated, and we're back to the same ol' clusterfuck we started with.
posted by BungaDunga at 4:15 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Damn, Rhaomi, I hope there is a Poster of the Month Award.

Seriously, though, on topic, quite a few of my friends worked without pay today, and still many others had to stay home. And the Senate just adjourned for the day. No negotiations tonight.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:15 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

One of my favorite debt limit explanations, nicely summing up the hollowness of the whole ordeal.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:16 PM on October 1, 2013 [15 favorites]

Did the federally run exchanges ever find the missing security questions?
posted by Ardiril at 4:16 PM on October 1, 2013

My parents were supposed to visit the Grand Canyon today. #itcan'thappenhere
posted by 2bucksplus at 4:18 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Been trying to log in to my state's health insurance exchange all day, to no avail; I'm taking this to mean it's a wild success. A friend of mine, who is a government employee, and who has up to this point been excited for me (the ACA will reduce our household health insurance spending significantly) suddenly turned very negative this morning: there's no way that I'll actually get insurance! Obamacare is a disaster! I can't help but feel like that narrative of chaos and failure is actually precisely what the GOP was going for.

Still, I feel for her. The personal pressure and worry for federal employees must be enormous right now.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:18 PM on October 1, 2013 [4 favorites]

PhoBWanKenobi, the New York ACA website broke after 2 million hits the first two hours it was live. New York only has 2.6 million uninsured.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:20 PM on October 1, 2013 [13 favorites]

Amusing note: The old designation for federal civilian employees who kept on working during shutdown was 'essential.' In meetings yesterday I learned the new terminology is 'excepted,' as we are all essential federal workers, even if some of us are less essential than others.

There are also 'exempt' workers, they are those whose jobs are funded out of fees and not appropriations, they all get to keep working.

The only excepted employees in my particular governmental organization of maybe 1000 people are the deputy under secretary (acting) and some animal handlers at an infectious disease research facility.

Day 1 and loving the shutdown.
posted by pseudonick at 4:20 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

Always look on the bright side of life:

"All NSF web-based systems are unavailable until further notice, preventing submission of grant applications and progress reports."

Woohoo, my overdue report doesn't count as overdue?
posted by RedOrGreen at 4:21 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

PhoBWanKenobi, the New York ACA website broke after 2 million hits the first two hours it was live. New York only has 2.6 million uninsured.

With healthy NY being discontinued in January, I imagine it's not just the currently-uninsured who are shopping for new insurance for next year.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:23 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

I'm taking this to mean it's a wild success.

I heard a similar thing as roomthreeseventeen on the radio today. It's fine, things are just exceptionally overloaded. I'm personally peeved about the Library of Congress.
posted by jessamyn at 4:23 PM on October 1, 2013 [5 favorites]

I mean, I'm so frustrated I can hardly breathe. What's the average citizen to do? I'm sick of sending donations, signing petitions, sharing on FB, RTing. These people are holding the US government hostage as far as I can see, they are terrorists, and I'm not kidding. What's to be done?
posted by thinkpiece at 4:23 PM on October 1, 2013 [37 favorites]

a march on congress?
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:24 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

Oh, and by "wild success" I should clarify that I mean exactly that, and not something tongue in cheek--people are researching their health insurance options for next year despite scare tactics and the shut-down. This is a good thing.
posted by PhoBWanKenobi at 4:28 PM on October 1, 2013 [14 favorites]

800,000 people out of work; seems like a perfect basis for a march.
posted by kaibutsu at 4:28 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

I think Kevin Drum put it pretty well a few days ago: "The Republican Party is bending its entire will, staking its very soul, fighting to its last breath, in service of a crusade to... Make sure that the working poor don't have access to affordable health care."

Just so we can keep in mind what it's really all about, when the horse race coverage devolves into talk of congressional arcana about conference committees and continuing resolutions.
posted by Joey Buttafoucault at 4:30 PM on October 1, 2013 [108 favorites]

It's also possible that GOP goons were DDOS'ing the new health exchange sites in order to create a sense of chaos.
posted by kaibutsu at 4:30 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

I walked by the Capitol building just about an hour ago. I'm actually somewhat surprised how quiet it is around there. You'd never know such a colossal clusterfuck was underway, aside from the disgruntled tourists down the street on the Mall.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 4:30 PM on October 1, 2013

I hadn't heard about the Hastert Rule before. Good to know there's even more ways for congress to just randomly drop the ball on things than I had previously thought.
posted by ckape at 4:31 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Nice post, thank you.
posted by Short Attention Sp at 4:34 PM on October 1, 2013

From the New York site just now:

Error 500: org.springframework.core.task.TaskRejectedException: Executor [java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor@20495dc9] did not accept task: org.springframework.context.event.SimpleApplicationEventMulticaster$1@ef7577d8

I wonder how many of those 2 million hits were people hitting refresh.
posted by Ardiril at 4:35 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Heh - kaibutsu, I was actually just wondering how many of the health exchanges had signed up for CloudFlare. I doubt any of them have, but maybe I'm wrong. I think the extremist wing of the GOP was hoping that the combined chaos of the gov't shutdown and the exchanges going live (with plenty of glitches, as should be expected on the first day of any service rollout) would be enough to get people riled up about something.
posted by antonymous at 4:35 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

My parents were supposed to visit the Grand Canyon today. #itcan'thappenhere

My parents are on a bus trip to Gettysburg, I wonder if they'll have issues too.
posted by drezdn at 4:36 PM on October 1, 2013

This post is incomplete without a section on immigrating to Canada.
posted by hellojed at 4:36 PM on October 1, 2013 [10 favorites]

I'm already in Canada (originally from the US), starting an academic job application process, and having serious second thoughts about applying to places in the US.
posted by kaibutsu at 4:38 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

At an organizational level (probably less so for individual congresspeople) the GOP benefits massively from making people hate the Government in one of its most visible forms: their representatives. Individual tea-partiers might take the fall for this, but overall this is exactly what the kleptocratic funders of the radicals want.

The original Tea Party's slogan was "No taxation without representation." This Tea Party's slogan is "No taxation. No representation."
posted by codacorolla at 4:40 PM on October 1, 2013 [23 favorites]

Jon Stewart Shreds GOP Over Obamacare: ‘Utter Insanity,’ ‘It’s a F*cking Law!’
posted by homunculus at 4:41 PM on October 1, 2013 [21 favorites]

Charles Pierce: Government Shutdown - The Reign Of Morons Is Here
posted by homunculus at 4:42 PM on October 1, 2013 [28 favorites]

I'll just go on record and say that my confidence is high the House Republicans will refuse to raise the debit ceiling and we'll go though that fiasco all over again.

Was a few reports last night of plenty of GOP Reps being quite drunk (literally). Including a FOF reporting the same about Boehner. I realize that jackass is between a rock and a hard place with his job on the line if he doesn't kowtow to the tea party, but Christ-on-a-cracker you would think after awhile he would just get sick of the house speaker-ship,(under the current crop of assholes it looks 2x as bad as the presidency) and either resign, or run things like normal. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if a clean spending bill was actually introduced it would pass. All it would take would be 12 R votes along with the D votes. 12. But it's not bought forward because Boehner would immediately face a leadership battle that he might lose.
posted by edgeways at 4:47 PM on October 1, 2013 [9 favorites]

It sounds like the most recent news reports are starting to predict a prolonged shutdown. I was hearing grumblings this morning that people expect this to get wrapped up with the debt ceiling issue, rather than dealing with both individually.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 4:48 PM on October 1, 2013

The shutdown is surreal. Watching from here in Europe, if I didn't know it was a real thing, I would think it the plot of some bizarre comedy movie.

Land of the Free huh? Well done Republicans, you have shown the world how spiteful and nasty you truly are. A BBC article said that a poll found that something like 72% of USians hold the Republicans responsible. Which they totally are. There is a word beginning with C, we use it a lot in the UK, however its use is somewhat frowned upon here, but it is the most apt word for these people I can think of.
posted by marienbad at 4:50 PM on October 1, 2013 [35 favorites]

via Twitter: Breaking: House fails to find 2/3 votes needed to fund veterans benefits during #shutdown.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:52 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

I tried to see the Jon Stewart Link but was greeted with this message instead:

Sorry but this video is unavailable from your location.
In case you can't give up free healthcare and move to America, you can watch The Daily Show With Jon Stewart at thecomedynetwork.ca
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 4:54 PM on October 1, 2013 [14 favorites]

> This post is incomplete without a section on immigrating to Canada.

> I'm already in Canada (originally from the US), starting an academic job application process, and having serious second thoughts about applying to places in the US.

Ha! Good luck, Canadian Immigration has been on strike for something like five months now.
posted by yeahwhatever at 4:55 PM on October 1, 2013

Rhaomi is not the poster we deserve, but the poster we need for this thread.
posted by Aizkolari at 4:55 PM on October 1, 2013 [8 favorites]

Why the Shutdown Looks So Bad for the GOP
posted by graymouser at 4:56 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

I keep seeing people write stuff like "wait until Wall Street/Koch Bros./Fat Cats/Plutocrats/Business get angry about the Teahadists disrupting the money flow, economy and profits - and then they'll rein in the baggers and that'll be the end of it."

That is not my take on the situation at all. All those actors may have at one time or another financed or used the Tea Party fanatics for their own purposes, may even had a hand in creating some of that astroturf. But the Tea Party is absolutely not controlled by those actors - and they never were. To the degree that they were financed by these actors, well, the monster got away from its creator. Not to Godwin, but the parallels are striking and very apt - there were plenty of financiers who thought they had all those fools in brown shirts at the beer halls in firm control... only they didn't. You can unleash forces you have no hope of controlling.

It is my firm belief that this is what is happening here. I think these are dangerous people. I don't think anybody is behind the scenes controlling things. That's part of what makes it dangerous - if they were mere puppets/marionettes controlled by unseen fat cats, there would be some natural controls in place, the moment you got to the puppet masters by hitting their interests, they'd pull strings and the situation would be resolved/controllable. But while there are opportunists feeding at the edges of this party, nobody is controlling the Tea Party. They are a natural force, and once organized and unleashed, are answerable to no one.

I keep giving this example, because I think it's apt - they are the same kinds of forces as during the Civil War, (and again, in the South, mostly). They are fanatics and rebels, but have no very clear or complex ideology - they are rejectionists, who are fighting for what they perceive as their lifestyle and power. Never mind how incoherent it is. Mob rule is rarely coherent. But it is extremely dangerous.

When they don't feel constrained by anything, they can inflict real damage. They don't understand, and don't care about the niceties of defaulting when the debt limit is not lifted - they only care about getting their non-negotiable ultimatums met. They are maximalists, and destroyers of order - radicals, not establishment-protecting conservatives. They may hark for a time that never was, but that doesn't matter, since you probably couldn't get two Teahadists in a room and have them agree on most points - it's enough that they have a clear objective: destroy the present order, Obama, the Democrats, RINOs, minorities, foreigners and a few other touchstones of Nativist lore.

They mean business, and they feel unconstrained. They are extremely dangerous, and it is just as dangerous to delude oneself that they are being controlled by anyone, including Wall Street/Koch Bros./Fat Cats/Plutocrats/Business - because we may be applying pressure along axis they are completely immune to.

They have to be fought. Relentlessly, without compromise and with absolute determination. The Civil War extracted a terrible - but unfortunately unavoidable price. I can only hope that this time there won't be blood flowing. But the politics are about to get very, very, bad. Brace yourselves - and then man the barricades.
posted by VikingSword at 4:57 PM on October 1, 2013 [163 favorites]

I kinda wonder why the Democrats don't add their own rider that just automatically creates single-payer healthcare. Let the Republicans defund the ACA, and slap on full on universal healthcare.

Perhaps one of the more savvy MeFites might clue me in because it seems to that this is spot on. I don't understand why the Democrats didn't counter-offer with something along the lines of:

You guys either need to pass a clean CR (which by the way is based on a post-sequester budget...already a loss for Dems). If you don't pass a clean CR you should expect to face a new Senate budget with all sequester concessions gone.

Republicans keep complaining that the Democrats aren't willing to compromise...I'd like to see their response to a situation where they are forced to confront what that really means.
posted by Hypnotic Chick at 4:58 PM on October 1, 2013 [16 favorites]

The media is doing a huge disservice to all in the way this is generally being reported. I've seen numerous TV reports that describe it as a "Budget Battle" or that the two parties are "negotiating". None of that is true. This really is a case of one party shutting down the entire government over an issue unrelated to the current budget debate.
posted by cell divide at 4:58 PM on October 1, 2013 [36 favorites]

via Twitter: Breaking: House fails to find 2/3 votes needed to fund veterans benefits during #shutdown.

I think this is good. I mean, not _good_ obviously, but Republicans shouldn't get to overturn the pieces of shutdown that will directly make them look bad for their base. Much like their bullshit photo ops at the WW2 memorial today.
posted by inigo2 at 4:59 PM on October 1, 2013 [8 favorites]

The US doesn't need a shut-down, it needs a reboot. A trojan process has hijacked the OS and gerrymandered the execution queue. It has persisted through a half-dozen resets; clearly, a cold restart is required. Probably need to re-install the OS. Maybe take the opportunity to upgrade to something modern.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:00 PM on October 1, 2013 [41 favorites]

From Homunculus' link, what a great summary of the situation:

"But there has never been in a single Congress -- or, more precisely, in a single House of the Congress -- a more lethal combination of political ambition, political stupidity, and political vainglory than exists in this one, which has arranged to shut down the federal government because it disapproves of a law passed by a previous Congress, signed by the president, and upheld by the Supreme Court, a law that does nothing more than extend the possibility of health insurance to the millions of Americans who do not presently have it, a law based on a proposal from a conservative think-tank and taken out on the test track in Massachusetts by a Republican governor who also happens to have been the party's 2012 nominee for president of the United States. That is why the government of the United States is, in large measure, closed this morning."
posted by any portmanteau in a storm at 5:01 PM on October 1, 2013 [71 favorites]

The media is doing a huge disservice to all in the way this is generally being reported. I've seen numerous TV reports that describe it as a "Budget Battle" or that the two parties are "negotiating". None of that is true. This really is a case of one party shutting down the entire government over an issue unrelated to the current budget debate.

From the shutdown thread: Reporting on government shutdown has failed democracy

Even with a story as straightforward as the government shutdown, splitting the difference remains the method of choice for the political reporters and editors in Washington's most influential news bureaus. Even when they surely know better. Even when many Republican elected officials have criticized their own leaders for being too beholden to the more radical right wing.

Media critics — and members of the public — have long decried this kind of "he-said-she-said" reporting. The Atlantic's James Fallows, one of the most consistent chroniclers and decriers of false equivalence, describes it as the "strong tendency to give equal time and credence to varying 'sides' of a story, even if one of the sides is objectively true and the other is just made up."

New York University journalism professor Jay Rosen argues that truth-telling has been surpassed as a newsroom priority by a neither-nor impartiality he calls the "View from Nowhere."

Blaming everyone — "Congress," "both sides," "Washington" — is simply the path of least resistance for today's political reporters. It's a way of avoiding conflict rather than taking the risk that the public — or their editors — will accuse them of being unprofessionally partisan.

But making a political judgment through triangulation — trying to stake out a safe middle ground between the two political parties — is still making a political judgment. It is often just not a very good one. And in this case, as in many others, it is doing the country a grave disservice.

So no, the shutdown is not generalized dysfunction, or gridlock or stalemate. It is aberrational behavior by a political party that is willing to take extreme and potentially damaging action to get its way. And by not calling it what it is, the political press is enabling it.

posted by zombieflanders at 5:01 PM on October 1, 2013 [41 favorites]

I commented on FB:

I think that as long as the government is shut down, Congress should be locked into the building like the cardinals who choose the Pope, with only food and drink passed in through a window. After one week, meals drop to once a day. After two weeks, bread and water only.

A friend of mine commented:

Until they send up smoke. If the smoke is black they haven't reached an agreement. If the smoke is orange it's because they've reached an agreement and set John Boehner on fire.

posted by KathrynT at 5:01 PM on October 1, 2013 [143 favorites]

Someday maybe I'll understand how you could be so opposed to universal healthcare that you'd be willing to burn the country to the ground to prevent it. Today isn't that day.
posted by octothorpe at 5:03 PM on October 1, 2013 [23 favorites]

octothorpe: because racism.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:04 PM on October 1, 2013 [30 favorites]

If the smoke is orange it's because they've...set John Boehner on fire.

Realistically, this may happen regardless.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 5:04 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

Someday maybe I'll understand how you could be so opposed to universal healthcare that you'd be willing to burn the country to the ground to prevent it.

Cause fuck you, got mine, that's why.
posted by inigo2 at 5:05 PM on October 1, 2013 [19 favorites]

I wish we could impeach Ted Cruz.
posted by immlass at 5:05 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

The Slate link shows that people are primarily blaming Republicans here. The shitty thing is that they've gerrymandered themselves into districts where it's really hard to punish them for it.
posted by graymouser at 5:05 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

Catching up on the new thread still, but wanted to ask a question. I'm seeing the House Democrats shot down the mini-CRs over popular issues that Republicans decided to try, because as far as I can tell they needed a 2/3 majority to pass it to the Senate. Do all CRs need a 2/3? or was this one odd for some reason? or am I misunderstanding it?
posted by DynamiteToast at 5:06 PM on October 1, 2013

America was not shut down properly. Would you like to start America in safe mode, with free healthcare and without the guns? (Recommended)

posted by Bora Horza Gobuchul at 5:06 PM on October 1, 2013 [157 favorites]

Borowitz is on it: Millions Flee Obamacare

"“My father didn’t have health care and neither did my father’s father before him,” he said. “I’ll be damned if I’m going to let my children have it.”
posted by fuse theorem at 5:06 PM on October 1, 2013 [13 favorites]

inigo2: "via Twitter: Breaking: House fails to find 2/3 votes needed to fund veterans benefits during #shutdown.

I think this is good. I mean, not _good_ obviously, but Republicans shouldn't get to overturn the pieces of shutdown that will directly make them look bad for their base. Much like their bullshit photo ops at the WW2 memorial today."

Seems like a bad idea to screw over people you've specifically trained fight... in other countries, this leads to military coups.
posted by chaosys at 5:06 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

If the smoke is orange it's because they've reached an agreement and set John Boehner on fire.

Speaking of, he's noticeably less vibrant in recent photos. I think he's really a mild orange Hulk and his power levels have been drained. Speaker John Boehner, belted by gamma rays!
posted by jason_steakums at 5:08 PM on October 1, 2013

We don't negotiate with terrorists?
posted by BrotherCaine at 5:08 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

The Money Behind the Shutdown Crisis (NYT)
posted by argonauta at 5:08 PM on October 1, 2013 [4 favorites]

My Republican congressmen haven't even hopped on the train of donating their salaries to charity or the national debt. I almost miss having no representation every time I read their bitter, business-cozy, gun-loving emails.
posted by jetlagaddict at 5:09 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Was a few reports last night of plenty of GOP Reps being quite drunk (literally). Including a FOF reporting the same about Boehner. I realize that jackass is between a rock and a hard place with his job on the line if he doesn't kowtow to the tea party, but Christ-on-a-cracker you would think after awhile he would just get sick of the house speaker-ship,(under the current crop of assholes it looks 2x as bad as the presidency) and either resign, or run things like normal. I'd bet dollars to doughnuts that if a clean spending bill was actually introduced it would pass. All it would take would be 12 R votes along with the D votes. 12. But it's not bought forward because Boehner would immediately face a leadership battle that he might lose.

On checking, my math suggests they'd need 17 Republicans, but even so, I was not aware that it was anything near that close. Jesus babyfucking christ.
posted by kafziel at 5:11 PM on October 1, 2013

I keep hearing the extremist Right labeled as "terrorists." Don't we have processes in place for dealing with terrorists? Or do they need to be called "enemy combatants" first?
posted by chaosys at 5:13 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

So, friends of mine on the WIC program in Texas are saying the offices are shuttered today and they couldn't get their benefits.

That means pregnant/nursing women, infants and young children are going to go hungry this week.

Now, Senator Ted Cruz said YESTERDAY he'd donate his salary to charity if Harry Reid forced a government shutdown, but his office has been eerily quiet all day today, not answering calls or making media statements.

If you'd like to visit his office in Houston (or are a furloughed worker with nothing to do until October 15), here's that info, along with some local businesses offering discounts for those patrons who show their Federal ID.

You gotta walk that talk for it to count, Senator -- bloviating alone ain't gonna cut it.
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 5:15 PM on October 1, 2013 [21 favorites]

The Republican party reminds me of a neighborhood kid who I played Monopoly with. He bought houses and immediately sold them for half-price. When I asked, "Why are you doing this?" all he said was, "I have a strategy."
posted by dances_with_sneetches at 5:15 PM on October 1, 2013 [22 favorites]

I thought that Chris Matthews' description of the deluded house republicans as having "kidnapped the money, then demanding that we hand over the baby" as pretty spot on.
posted by R. Mutt at 5:22 PM on October 1, 2013 [38 favorites]

Pony request: Rhaomi is only allowed to make one post per week.

(Because that's how long it takes me to get through every one of his amazing posts. Seriously - thanks for this, excellent post. I'll go start reading it now)
posted by triggerfinger at 5:24 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

Neither of my young invincibles were aware that they had to get health insurance. Thus, they were also unaware that the IRS would charge them a penalty if they didn't get it.

Both are leaning toward paying the penalty.

I know a lot of people who feel this way. As I always say to them: You don't need health insurance until you do.

All it takes is one accident/cancer diagnosis/unexpected disease outbreak to make you regret not being covered...
posted by dhens at 5:27 PM on October 1, 2013 [35 favorites]

Are these idiots really stupid enough to default? Shutting down the government is political theater. Defaulting is setting off a suitcase nuke.
posted by Justinian at 5:29 PM on October 1, 2013 [4 favorites]

dhens: I've been disabled by heart disease since 2004. They are fully aware of the consequences.

Justinian: That's the problem. A suitcase nuke is not much of a deterrent.
posted by Ardiril at 5:31 PM on October 1, 2013

Are these idiots really stupid enough to default?

Is that a serious question? Of course they are.
posted by edgeways at 5:34 PM on October 1, 2013 [11 favorites]

Both are leaning toward paying the penalty.

I haven't run the numbers on this, but if I was in the insurance business, and knew there were X number of people who would pay $Y in penalties to not buy my product, I imagine I'd be interested in getting a chunk of that X*$Y money by dropping my rates.

Bonus for consumers is that the law lists out minimal requirements that insurance plans have to meet, so (it's my understanding that) insurance companies can't just start selling million dollar deductible plans for $Y-1.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 5:37 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

They are stupid enough to default. My only question now is: will Obama be willing to mint the platinum coin? It's not a strategy I like, but it's better than letting the country default.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:37 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

Are these idiots really stupid enough to default?

They shut down the government when polling has been clear for months that they'd take the blame for it. What was that question again?

What y'all need is a Westminster system, where failure to pass a budget immediately triggers an election. Long after this shutdown is over and various parties are blaming other parties, you'll be left with the structural aspects that made it rational for a caucus of nihilists to steer for the cliff.
posted by fatbird at 5:37 PM on October 1, 2013 [53 favorites]

I thought this whole thing was started by DeMint/Koch/Cruz and they are basically saying f-u to Obama.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 5:38 PM on October 1, 2013

Yeah, they've been trying to lynch the President for the last six years.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:40 PM on October 1, 2013 [16 favorites]

Pater Aletheias: "They are stupid enough to default. My only question now is: will Obama be willing to mint the platinum coin? It's not a strategy I like, but it's better than letting the country default."

Why don't you like the idea? It's legal (albeit via a legal loophole), unlike either of Obama's other options:

Failure to raise the debt will force the president to break a law — the only question is which one.

The Constitution requires the president to spend what Congress has instructed him to spend, to raise only those taxes Congress has authorized him to impose and to borrow no more than Congress authorizes.

If President Obama spends what the law orders him to spend and collects the taxes Congress has authorized him to collect, then he must borrow more than Congress has authorized him to borrow. If the debt ceiling is not raised, he will have to violate one of these constitutional imperatives. Which should he choose?

posted by tonycpsu at 5:41 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Lynch is the telling word here, ayuh. Sad.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 5:41 PM on October 1, 2013

Both are leaning toward paying the penalty.

Try to convince them that they should at least look into how much it would cost. Especially if their chief objection is not so much invincibility as being poor as fuck. I'm no longer as young as I was but goddammit I'm still just as invincible, and only slightly less poor as fuck. That said...I could apparently get cheap shitty healthcare for, including the tax credit (which is can be applied directly to the payments, apparently) like $32 a month. (I know!) They may reconsider their stance when they see how affordable it really looks.

And that, as everyone keeps saying, is what the Republicans are so afraid of.
posted by mstokes650 at 5:42 PM on October 1, 2013 [12 favorites]

2bucksplus: "My parents were supposed to visit the Grand Canyon today. #itcan'thappenhere"

My grandpa missed out on his one chance of seeing the Grand Canyon because of the Newt Shutdown. That was the day that I started sloughing off the in-your-face Republicanism I'd carried through high school and college to that point.

(he's too frail to take, now. Really breaks my heart.)
posted by notsnot at 5:42 PM on October 1, 2013 [8 favorites]

I just started poking around healthcare.gov today and then I looked around at some health insurers' web sites and upon first blush without the hard numbers in front of me it looks like I'm going to save about $1,000 a year with Obamacare on premiums and end up with much better insurance than I have now.
posted by vibrotronica at 5:42 PM on October 1, 2013 [36 favorites]

There is a word beginning with C, we use it a lot in the UK, however its use is somewhat frowned upon here, but it is the most apt word for these people I can think of.

Off the top of my head...

Callous? Conservative? Cruel? Corrosive? Cynical? Corrupt? Corpulent? Cancerous? Complicit? Cringe-worthy? Contemptible? Cold? Capricious? Cornfed? Condemned? Childish? Confrontational? Conniving? Crass?
posted by Mario Speedwagon at 5:43 PM on October 1, 2013 [15 favorites]

I was screaming at the radio on my way home (at a stoplight): A COMPROMISE IS NOT WHERE ONE SIDE GETS EVERYTHING AND THE OTHER SIDE GETS NOTHING YOU FUCKING ASSHOLES.

I think I scared the lady in the car next to me. Sometimes I forget I have my windows rolled down.
posted by rtha at 5:43 PM on October 1, 2013 [47 favorites]

"All NSF web-based systems are unavailable until further notice, preventing submission of grant applications and progress reports."

Woohoo, my overdue report doesn't count as overdue?

Ha! You got me excited for a second, because I have a grant report due to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs.

But there's nothing on their website about being shut down. Of course.
posted by showbiz_liz at 5:43 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Both are leaning toward paying the penalty.

I was recently talking with a group of people in their twenties who were kicking around the same idea until one of them said, "yeah, but my appendicitis surgery cost $x". Things got quiet fast.
posted by R. Mutt at 5:44 PM on October 1, 2013 [20 favorites]

IT'S COOL GUYS WE GOT THIS
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 5:44 PM on October 1, 2013

"Failure to raise the debt will force the president to break a law"

... and then they impeach him? Could this be the Master Plan?

mstaokes650: If I push, they will resist.
posted by Ardiril at 5:44 PM on October 1, 2013

Sure, it's legal. But it's also far outside what anyone who wrote that law intended to be used for. Creating another trillion dollars out of thin air without any congressional authority ought to be outside what the president is able to do. American presidents have too much unilateral power already. But, I agree he is currently technically able to do it and it is better than a default. But, to me, it's one more step on the way to being a banana republic where we are ruled by technicalities and glitches instead of a functional government.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 5:45 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

Both are leaning toward paying the penalty.

The one thing the law is missing is a legal requirement that all non-participants MUST pay for all medical services IN ADVANCE.

Or, as the Old Scrooges among the Libertarians would say: "Let 'em die".
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:50 PM on October 1, 2013

It's also possible that GOP goons were DDOS'ing the new health exchange sites in order to create a sense of chaos.

See, if it was me I would act oblivious and claim every single ping was an American interested in taking advantages of the amazing benefits of Obamacare.

Perhaps one of the more savvy MeFites might clue me in because it seems to that this is spot on. I don't understand why the Democrats didn't counter-offer with something along the lines of:

You guys either need to pass a clean CR (which by the way is based on a post-sequester budget...already a loss for Dems). If you don't pass a clean CR you should expect to face a new Senate budget with all sequester concessions gone.

They absolutely can't further legitimize the idea that the existence of the government is negotiable.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:52 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

I dunno, President Obama and his wife are both lawyers and they're both from Chicago. I'm thinking they've got this. I was sort of losing faith a while ago but really, I think it will be all right and they will stand firm against this and things will turn out just fine. I don't doubt their integrity one bit.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 5:53 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

osf: ... or pay the penalty, in advance and out of pocket (not deducted).
posted by Ardiril at 5:53 PM on October 1, 2013

Clawing back the 20th century.
posted by five fresh fish at 5:55 PM on October 1, 2013 [13 favorites]

I doubt the President will go for any of the gimmicks such as the platinum coin or the 14th Amendment option. I think that even hinting that he might do that would actually undermine his leverage. If it comes to that moment and there is no compromise, there will be extra-Constitutional decisions to make aplenty. We can only hope that some shred of our constitutional republic remains when it is over.
posted by humanfont at 6:03 PM on October 1, 2013 [4 favorites]

" I have a grant report due to the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs."

Is this a posh way of saying you are going to see your dealer to get some weed on tick?*

* tick = buy now, pay later.
posted by marienbad at 6:04 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Do all CRs need a 2/3? or was this one odd for some reason? or am I misunderstanding it?

They don't all need 2/3.

These were brought up under a procedure called "suspension of the rules," which is normally used for minor legislation that has wide approval. Bills under SotR can easily bypass most of the legislative process like committee deliberation and hearings, they receive only very abbreviated debate, and no amendments are allowed. The flipside for these benefits is that a 2/3 vote is required to pass. Consideration under SotR is very common and is the primary way minor legislation -- naming something after a war hero, minor bugfixes to existing programs, other minor tweaks that are the bread and butter of legislative life -- is dealt with.

I haven't looked into it, but the obvious reason to consider under SotR would be speed and simplicity. I've seen someone suggesting that consideration under SotR instead of normal order also kept the Democrats from using procedural tricks to force a vote on a clean CR, but I haven't looked to see how much truth there is to that. There's a good chance Sarah Binder or Steve Smith will say something about it on the Monkey Cage; they're probably the best experts on congressional procedure we have.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:04 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

I just realized this is my 113th post, about the 113th Congress. Spooky.

Spookier: I just picked up some pasta from Domino's and ended up being order #6,666,666. WE'RE DOOMED.
posted by Rhaomi at 6:09 PM on October 1, 2013 [24 favorites]

that is both spoopy and creppy
posted by elizardbits at 6:11 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

"Failure to raise the debt will force the president to break a law"

... and then they impeach him? Could this be the Master Plan?

I wondered the exact same thing when I read this. Could it be that Ted Cruz et al. has a longer term strategy and (don't laugh) is smarter than we're giving him credit for?
posted by triggerfinger at 6:11 PM on October 1, 2013

I wonder how many of those 2 million hits were people hitting refresh.

This. I picture hundreds of thousands of people staring at their screens, hitting reload so much that they just knocked it offline.

Still and all, coolest DDOS ever....people looking to get insurance that's now affordable in the US.

Although I guess I wouldn't put it past some GOP PAC to hire someone to knock servers offline, so anything's possible.
posted by nevercalm at 6:13 PM on October 1, 2013

The first day of Obamacare is over and I am pooped! Next time I won't volunteer for so many death panels!
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 6:14 PM on October 1, 2013 [54 favorites]

I don't comprehend how it's even possible to shut down an entire government. This is like the little hole by which they blew up the Death Star.

That being said the fact that it's even possible to shut down the goverment makes me happy I'm not on single-payer healthcare. If we were going to go in that direction the government would have to be a little more stable.

My dad's food stamps got cut to $40 for the whole month because of this shit.
posted by bleep at 6:18 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

I wondered the exact same thing when I read this. Could it be that Ted Cruz et al. has a longer term strategy and (don't laugh) is smarter than we're giving him credit for?

But the Senate is the body that tries the President if (s)he's impeached- the House can vote to impeach, but there's no way a majority of the Senate will vote to impeach.

my vote is stupidity.

PS one thing I'm vaguely amused by is the number of people who are confused as to which government services are federal and which are run by the states. Yes, friends, the DMV is still open...
posted by BungaDunga at 6:20 PM on October 1, 2013 [4 favorites]

I wondered the exact same thing when I read this. Could it be that Ted Cruz et al. has a longer term strategy and (don't laugh) is smarter than we're giving him credit for?

An impeachment would be a bit difficult with a Democratic-controlled Senate.
posted by drezdn at 6:20 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

I wondered the exact same thing when I read this. Could it be that Ted Cruz et al. has a longer term strategy and (don't laugh) is smarter than we're giving him credit for?

It would be a mistake to assume someone is stupid simply because their moral orientation is deplorable, or because their political supporters aren't necessarily critical thinkers.

The shut-down is clearly a tactical move, since there was never any chance that it would directly cause something the Tea Party/GOP wants. It could be that they're trying to force the president to break a law, certainly, although if this shut-down goes on for a while, they may also try to argue at some later point that they've proven that we don't even need the federal government! The Tea Party has made no secret of its inimical attitude toward government itself, especially federal, and so perhaps in that sense shutting it down is a way of pushing that plutocratic article of faith closer to mainstream, NYT-editorial-style respectability.
posted by clockzero at 6:21 PM on October 1, 2013 [5 favorites]

Although I guess I wouldn't put it past some GOP PAC to hire someone to knock servers offline, so anything's possible.

There was some idiotic Twitter chatter I saw last night on C-SPAN's live Twitter feed thinger where a few idiotic Tea Party wannabe freedom fighters were all "FLOOD HEALTHCARE.GOV WITH FAKE INFO TOMORROW TO BRING DOWN OBAMACARE" which, y'know, hopefully those dudes aren't their crack team because that's adorable.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:22 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

VikingSword's analysis is very apt except when he groups together "Wall Street/Koch Bros./Fat Cats/Plutocrats/Business". As argonauta's "The Money Behind the Shutdown Crisis" (NYT) link describes, the Koch Brothers are clearly in support of any crusade that would 'break the economy', and happily so. Why? Because Koch Industries is "the second largest privately held company in the United States", and "Charles Koch has stated that the company will publicly offer shares 'literally over my dead body'". They can happily give a big FUCK YOU to Wall Street and all the financial markets, and considering the mix of manufactured products their companies make, they can easily batten down their hatches and weather this financial hurricane, shutting down anything and laying off anyone involved with 'unproductive assets', knowing that they can later buy out any publicly owned competitors whose stock prices have evaporated for pennies on the dollar and laugh all the way to the bank. And when it all settles down, they might just be Kings of a land where they have no taxes to pay and no regulations to hold them back (not likely, but the pipe dream obviously is called into play). The owners of the biggest privately owned companies could well be the Last Standing in a devastated economy, except for a few like #5 Bechtel, who have a lot of government contracts. Still, the Koch Brothers are not going to be the only billionaires who can profit from an American Economic Collapse... just the most visible.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:23 PM on October 1, 2013 [36 favorites]

But the Senate is the body that tries the President if (s)he's impeached- the House can vote to impeach, but there's no way a majority of the Senate will vote to impeach.

If it came to that, I'd put a little money on the Senate actually just dismissing the charges rather than having a trial and acquitting.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:24 PM on October 1, 2013

If the Republicans win the Senate next year, they'll probably attempt to impeach the President no matter what happens between now and then. It'll probably go down close to how it did when they did the same thing to President Clinton.
posted by drezdn at 6:24 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

It's all part of drowning-it-in-the-bathtub mentality. There seems to be currently in the House a sizable portion of people who simultaneous hates government while not minding taking a paycheck from it, and I swear they are doing all they possibly can to undermine the federal system for one reason or another, making it toxic and unsavory.
posted by edgeways at 6:25 PM on October 1, 2013 [8 favorites]

Because Koch Industries is "the second largest privately held company in the United States", and "Charles Koch has stated that the company will publicly offer shares 'literally over my dead body'". They can happily give a big FUCK YOU to Wall Street and all the financial markets, and considering the mix of manufactured products their companies make, they can easily batten down their hatches and weather this financial hurricane, shutting down anything and laying off anyone involved with 'unproductive assets', knowing that they can later buy out any publicly owned competitors whose stock prices have evaporated for pennies on the dollar and laugh all the way to the bank. And maybe when it all settles down, they may be Kings of a land where they have no taxes to pay and no regulations to hold them back (not likely, but the pipe dream obviously is called into play).

I'll say this for the grim dark Libertarian future, at least they give you cartoon villains to take the moral sting off your insurrection.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:26 PM on October 1, 2013 [13 favorites]

Anyway my money is on the debt ceiling not being hit. A federal shutdown doesn't cause financial armageddon- it's happened before and we know more or less how it works. I don't think a majority of the house is very likely to want to test the debt ceiling. On the other hand, apparently the gov't has not put forward a drop-dead date on default, since they can't be exactly sure when the money runs out- I worry that the Tea Partiers might push and push and then boom, default, since there's no set date.

So from that vantage point all the articles about debt ceilings are a red herring- the real damage is plenty bad without debtageddon. Honestly, I think the worst part of the damage is large portions of the country getting fed up with the Congress (and by extension, the government) as a whole. When all you hear about is bullshit posturing, you're just going to tune out (I have, partially). When, meanwhile (At least when the House hasn't shut down the government) the Federal bureaucracy is doing a fairly admiral job of managing national parks, our space program, etc...
posted by BungaDunga at 6:28 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

The shut-down is clearly a tactical move, since there was never any chance that it would directly cause something the Tea Party/GOP wants.

I honestly, honestly can't see what the benefit is to them or even what they think the benefit may be. We had a showdown over the debt ceiling two years ago and that didn't go so well for them either. The only thing I can think of is that their districts have been so gerrymandered that they stand to actually lose their seats if they don't cater to their extremist constituents.
posted by triggerfinger at 6:30 PM on October 1, 2013 [4 favorites]

It'll probably go down close to how it did when they did the same thing to President Clinton.

An intern is going to blow Obama in the Oval Office?
posted by crossoverman at 6:35 PM on October 1, 2013 [5 favorites]

House GOP logic: "To save the foetus we must kill the foetus"
posted by skepticbill at 6:36 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

House GOP logic: "To save the foetus we must kill the foetus"

No, it's "To save the foetus we must kill the mother. Who needs mothers anyway? Always telling you what to do, providing nutrients and shelter! Stupid mothers."
posted by emjaybee at 6:38 PM on October 1, 2013 [16 favorites]

So what would it take to have all of the Republicans responsible for this charged with treason? They're very clearly acting out against the interests of the United States of America and its people. Charge them with treason, oust them from office, and let's get some grown-ups in here.
posted by IAmUnaware at 6:42 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

Thanks to the government shutdown, I could wantonly discuss yesterday's baseball matches without the express written consent of Major League Baseball.
posted by Renoroc at 6:42 PM on October 1, 2013 [18 favorites]

Holy shit, let's just say that I'm really, really, really glad that federal elections aren't held on Facebook.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:44 PM on October 1, 2013 [12 favorites]

I should think the worst part of the damage is to the USA's international relationships. How can any other government take the US government seriously when it's hijacked by maroons? How can the US remain a world power when it's in this sort of state?
posted by five fresh fish at 6:44 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

So what would it take to have all of the Republicans responsible for this charged with treason? They're very clearly acting out against the interests of the United States of America and its people. Charge them with treason, oust them from office, and let's get some grown-ups in here.

Why are you looking backwards, this is 'Murica, we look forwards here. Why do you hate 'Murica?
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:44 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

How can any other government take the US government seriously when it's hijacked by maroons? How can the US remain a world power when it's in this sort of state?

There you go, looking on the Bright Side.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:46 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

So what would it take to have all of the Republicans responsible for this charged with treason?

Holy shit, charging your political opponents with treason would be the end of the country. It's the worst idea I've ever heard short of executing them with a gunshot to the head.
posted by Justinian at 6:47 PM on October 1, 2013 [16 favorites]

Since they're private, we can't see their balance sheet, but if they borrow as part of their business and the bond markets shit the bed (and they WILL if the US defaults), then they will be up shit creek with most of the rest of the economy.

You're right, we can't see their balance sheet, we can't see what actions they've taken to insulate themselves from the bond markets, or how much.

...charging your political opponents with treason would be the end of the country.

If it were in any way feasible, the GOP would've done it before.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:51 PM on October 1, 2013 [4 favorites]

Right now I'm hoping for this scenario, as outlined by Jonathan Chait: Basically, at least 17 of the non-crazy House Republicans break with the party and form a grand coalition with the House Democrats with a minimalist, but crisis-free, policy agenda. The closest analogue I can think of is when the left and the center-right in France banded together to keep the far-right National Front from winning the presidency. It's precisely what we need right now, and while it's rather unlikely at the moment, I have a feeling anything could happen in the next 30 days.
posted by Cash4Lead at 6:52 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Why are you looking backwards, this is 'Murica, we look forwards here. Why do you hate 'Murica?

Said the man with the knife in his back.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 6:54 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

I haven't read through the thread yet, but wanted to post a link to this NYT op-ed piece about how this puts president Obama in the position of breaking the law if the debt ceiling is not raised. (thanks to my bil)
posted by annsunny at 6:56 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Why are you looking backwards, this is 'Murica, we look forwards here. Why do you hate 'Murica?
Said the man with the knife in ~~his~~ YOUR back.

FTFY.
posted by oneswellfoop at 6:56 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

You know I like Obama, he's obviously a smart dude and can surely carry an argument.

But oh dear god listening to his little speech/ACA sales announcement today from the Rose Garden, all I could help but think was can someone PLEASE get Bill Fucking Clinton over here and read the GOP the riot act like he did at the convention?

Because shit, we really need someone like Bill to get the real message out there. Like yesterday.
posted by JoeZydeco at 6:57 PM on October 1, 2013 [18 favorites]

Who's to say the House Republicans won't get their way at least temporararily? The game theory certainly suggests they will. The people who are saying that they will inevitably lose are the same people who were saying that they wouldn't do the shutdown to begin with, employing the same defective logic now as then.

Having picked their fight, the House Republicans really have to win it; losing absolutely devestates the support and confidence of their base, while there isn't one liberal voters who says "heck, those Republicans finally saw the light, I oughta vote for 'em".

By contrast, Obama and Reid can give in temporarily, and take the fight to the electorate in 13 months and ask for a mandate to fund Obamacare fully, or even go all in for some form of single payer that probably would prefer anyway.
posted by MattD at 6:59 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

I don't think giving in would be good for Obama politically. It might be better for him to ignore the debt ceiling and go through an impeachment. This would be so preposterous that it might actually activate moderates enough to vote these bozos out of congress, but who knows....

Poll Indicates GOP Has Been Deeply Damaged By Shutdown Fight
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:06 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

There is nothing left in the demands that Obama can give up, even temporarily.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:06 PM on October 1, 2013

(he might as well resign if he lets them gut the signature legislation of his Presidency)
posted by Drinky Die at 7:08 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

Here is every previous government shutdown, why they happened and how they ended.
posted by triggerfinger at 7:08 PM on October 1, 2013 [10 favorites]

The 2014 election would be a terrible time to seek an Obamacare mandate. Smaller, older, more conservative electorate, a gerrymandered House, a Senate slate full of red-state Democrats, and no incumbent president on the ticket to generate excitement and attention. Not to mention even temporary capitulation would make Obama look weak and his healthcare law not worth defending at the ballot box.
posted by Rhaomi at 7:08 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

Having picked their fight, the House Republicans really have to win it . . . By contrast, Obama and Reid can give in temporarily, and take the fight to the electorate in 13 months and ask for a mandate to fund Obamacare fully, or even go all in for some form of single payer that probably would prefer anyway.

What? No. I mean, huh? That's no... But I mean...

People are still fundamentally misunderstanding what's happening here. This isn't about Republicans vs. Democrats. This is about Republicans vs. Republicans, and by proxy it's R vs. D and R vs. American public. Close to (and probably more than) half of all Republican representatives want to send a clean CR to the Senate. But they can't, because Boehner won't allow them to vote on it. The Democrats are absolutely unified in their opposition to Republican shenanigans. All of the splintering and fracturing is occurring within the Republican Party. This is all about Boehner trying to do whatever he can to hold onto his role as Speaker. If he presented a clean CR to the House right now, it would pass with probably close to 400 votes.

The Democrats allowing the Republicans to "win" this negotiation by stopping the ACA is just not even in the realm of possibility. Which is why this whole thing is so pointless.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:08 PM on October 1, 2013 [69 favorites]

But oh dear god listening to his little speech/ACA sales announcement today from the Rose Garden...

Me too. It was like the prime-time Syria speech, it was like they had the event all scripted out a week ago and went through with it with only a little nod at what had changed in the past week.
posted by peeedro at 7:12 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Obama was right (haven't said that in a while) when he said negotiating is a fool's game, they'll just come back for the debt ceiling...and then for something else. They are already so far out of bounds the next step is what, demanding repeal of the rights of women to vote?

We are waaaay past negotiating, and I think a lot closer to a kind of civil war than we want to believe. If the Republicans keep going this direction, things will really start to break down. We joke about dismantling government, but what is it that's happening now but exactly that? And there is no way out of that situation without violence of some kind, which hardly bears thinking about.

He cannot let them make him go back on ACA, because that breaks our government, it breaks law; not a law, but law itself. It breaks the mechanisms (already perverted, sure) by which we make law.

I just wish he'd put up this fight earlier. He's given away far too much already. It makes me fear that he'll back down even on this, and then I will be really afraid for my country.
posted by emjaybee at 7:16 PM on October 1, 2013 [29 favorites]

We have a law (Obamacare) and these assholes are refusing to honor the law.

So why aren't they in jail yet?
posted by BlueHorse at 7:17 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

You guys have read this, right? DeMint, Shadow Speaker.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 7:18 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

Ha, I just learned a Fun Fact About Congress - the Speaker can be anybody who gets enough votes, not just an elected Representative. I vote we replace Boehner with a random drill sergeant or inner-city school teacher.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:18 PM on October 1, 2013 [19 favorites]

There's a simple solution here. Shut down Obamacare, and implement the Affordable Care Act instead.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 7:20 PM on October 1, 2013 [11 favorites]

BungaDunga: "Yes, friends, the DMV is still open..."

Unless you live in D.C.
posted by fireoyster at 7:22 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Are these idiots really stupid enough to default?
They shut down the government when polling has been clear for months that they'd take the blame for it. What was that question again?

That polling was obviously skewed. After unskewing, it becomes clear that 83% of Americans blame Democrats, and the remaining 46% of Americans double dog blame Democrats.

Incidentally, the genius who proved that the polls were skewed has now uncovered ironclad proof that Obama is gay.
posted by Flunkie at 7:27 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

the Speaker can be anybody who gets enough votes, not just an elected Representative. I vote we replace Boehner with a random drill sergeant or inner-city school teacher.

Round up 17 Republicans and you've got a deal.
posted by Cash4Lead at 7:28 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Flunkie, that was horrible. I mean, whoa, my brain kind of shorted out with that link.

Need to go scream into a paper bag for a while...
posted by daq at 7:30 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

Is there any chance this could split the Republication party or is that just a fever dream of someone from a place with a parliamentary system where party changing happens relatively a lot? Split moderates off to temporarily align with the Democrats and elect a right-side Dem Speaker (sorry Nancy, definitely not you!). Get through the next few months with minimal long-term damage, but also barebones legislation. Then the Dem-aligned Republicans coalesce back to the middle?

I have basically no sympathy with anyone with an R next to their name, but I can't believe most of the old time Republicans can put up with these bozos making them look bad forever.
posted by marylynn at 7:32 PM on October 1, 2013

Why Boehner doesn’t just ditch the hard right

Robert Costa is the National Review's Washington editor and one of the best-sourced reporters among House Republicans. Like many others, I've relied on his reporting in recent days about how House Republicans are strategizing around the government shutdown. But it left me with some questions, particularly around Speaker John Boehner's strategy. We spoke by phone this afternoon, and a lightly edited transcript follows.

posted by Rhaomi at 7:33 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

Is there any chance this could split the Republication party or is that just a fever dream of someone from a place with a parliamentary system where party changing happens relatively a lot? Split moderates off to temporarily align with the Democrats and elect a right-side Dem Speaker (sorry Nancy, definitely not you!). Get through the next few months with minimal long-term damage, but also barebones legislation. Then the Dem-aligned Republicans coalesce back to the middle?

Ooh, can the Republicans just straight up kick the Tea Party members out instead of the moderates leaving the party? Blunts that little primary threat when they don't have the funding and support of the GOP to put up a challenge. It seems like a full-on schism has been coming for a while now, but they keep trying to push it off.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:39 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

We are waaaay past negotiating, and I think a lot closer to a kind of civil war than we want to believe. If the Republicans keep going this direction, things will really start to break down. We joke about dismantling government, but what is it that's happening now but exactly that? And there is no way out of that situation without violence of some kind, which hardly bears thinking about.

The intractability of the two parties keeps reminding me of the book on the Spanish Civil War I finished not long ago. The situations aren't similar - the Left had real power in the Spain of the Thirties - but what similarities there are make me want to drink as much beer as possible and read something that has nothing to do with my country.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:43 PM on October 1, 2013

The head of the GOP is Reince Priebus and isn't he one of those uber conservative types? So I'm guessing the moderates would have to leave.

Rhaomi's link is interesting and also answered another question I had (this time coming from the side of me that clearly has no ambition and is thus unsuited for politics): why the hell does Boehner want it so bad? It seems like a big pain the ass to me. Quit while he's ahead, take some lush speaking gigs for a while and then cash some checks from the lobbyist firm he starts while making calls from his ultra-plush tanning bed?!
posted by marylynn at 7:45 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

The intractability of the two parties...

What? The Democrats bend over before the wind even gets to them.
posted by sonic meat machine at 7:53 PM on October 1, 2013 [22 favorites]

The US Congress: When unstoppable idiocy meets incompetent objects.
posted by Ghostride The Whip at 7:54 PM on October 1, 2013

Anybody notice the google logo today?

123 anniversary of Yosemite ... and we closed her down.

Ironical maybe?
posted by BlueHorse at 7:55 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

The intractability of the one party, then, which is really the problem.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:55 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

Unfortunately Republican moderates in the House (if any are really left) are more terrified by being primaried from the right by some Club for Growth sponsored candidate that will claim that Rep. X is soft on X which makes them unfit for office.

Because only a small number of districts are actually competitive they really don't have to worry about losing a general election because they have a safe seat so if they really want to keep riding the congress critter gravy train which is a surefire ticket to getting a K street lobbyist salary after retirement from the house it's critical for them to maintain party cohesion.

Right now there just isn't enough systemic risk to individual congresscritters for the republicans to break rank and support a clean bill.

Really the only hope is that the monied interests who actually bankroll these guys in terms of their campaigns start calling in markers because this sort of Republican brinksmanship could potential cost them billions.
posted by vuron at 7:56 PM on October 1, 2013 [4 favorites]

Well, the Republican staffers are griping now too.

Like many Americans, most Congressional staffers receive health insurance through their employer, the federal government. And like most employers, the government covers a big portion of the cost: 75 percent. The Affordable Care Act changed this, requiring members of Congress and their staff to obtain coverage via the the health insurance exchanges created by the law. But the language in the law was unclear as to whether lawmakers and their aides would be able to keep using government money to purchase heath insurance. To clear this up, the Obama administration issued a proposed rule in August stating that the government would continue to cover 75 percent of congressional health benefits. The GOP latched onto this new regulation as an "outrageous exemption for Congress" and a "big fat taxpayer funded subsidy." Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) and Rep. Michael McCaul (R-Tex.), introduced bills that would strip out those employer contributions.

"I understand it politically, and as a talking point," one rank-and-file Republican staffer says of the Vitter and McCaul measures. "But Congress literally threw staff under the bus on this…You're hurting staff assistants who are sorting your mail."

Staffers don't make as much money as you may think, he adds. "When I started on the Hill answering phone calls, I'd hear people saying, 'You're a rich congressional staffer,' and I'm like, 'you must be out of your mind.'" Some low-level congressional employees make as little as about $28,000 a year; House staff salaries are the lowest they've been since 2007. "We have folks in our office who don't make a lot of money," the GOP aide says, "and losing an employer contribution will make it hard on them."
posted by emjaybee at 8:09 PM on October 1, 2013 [11 favorites]

How would the Supreme Court even approach something like the President only having the choice of breaking one law or another?
posted by jason_steakums at 8:09 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

A constitutional crisis is a situation that the legal system's constitution or other basic principles of operation appear unable to resolve; it often results in a breakdown in the orderly operation of government. Often, generally speaking, a constitutional crisis is a situation in which separate factions within a government disagree about the extent to which each of these factions hold sovereignty. Most commonly, constitutional crises involve some degree of conflict between different branches of government (e.g., executive, legislature, and/or judiciary), or between different levels of government in a federal system (e.g., state and federal governments).

A constitutional crisis may occur because one or more parties to the dispute willfully chooses to violate a provision of a constitution or an unwritten constitutional convention, or it may occur when the disputants disagree over the interpretation of such a provision or convention. If the dispute arises because some aspect of the constitution is ambiguous or unclear, the ultimate resolution of the crisis often establishes a precedent for the future. For instance, the United States constitution is silent on the question of whether states are allowed to secede from the Union; however, after the secession of several states was forcibly prevented in the American Civil War, it has become generally accepted that states cannot leave the Union.

A constitutional crisis is distinct from a rebellion, which is defined as when factions outside of a government challenge that government's sovereignty, as in a coup or revolution led by the military or civilian protesters.

A constitutional crisis can lead to government paralysis, collapse, or civil war.

posted by Rhaomi at 8:12 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

How would the Supreme Court even approach something like the President only having the choice of breaking one law or another?

With the Supreme Court essentially being a canny arm of the right, I can't foresee anyway that Obama wouldn't suffer some kind of loss no matter what he does.
posted by Hypnotic Chick at 8:12 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

"I understand it politically, and as a talking point," one rank-and-file Republican staffer says of the Vitter and McCaul measures. "But Congress literally threw staff under the bus on this…You're hurting staff assistants who are sorting your mail."

Staffers don't make as much money as you may think, he adds. "When I started on the Hill answering phone calls, I'd hear people saying, 'You're a rich congressional staffer,' and I'm like, 'you must be out of your mind.'" Some low-level congressional employees make as little as about $28,000 a year; House staff salaries are the lowest they've been since 2007. "We have folks in our office who don't make a lot of money," the GOP aide says, "and losing an employer contribution will make it hard on them."

Sounds like Republican Congressional staffers should form a union.
posted by Flunkie at 8:12 PM on October 1, 2013 [64 favorites]

How would the Supreme Court even approach something like the President only having the choice of breaking one law or another?

Discussed elsewhere, someone mentioned the defense of impossibility, meaning that when you cannot avoid breaking the law, it immunizes you from breaking it. That's not, in fact, "impossibility" in the context of a legal defense, but they sounded like they were getting the wrong name on the right doctrine. Perhaps a lawyer can comment.
posted by fatbird at 8:15 PM on October 1, 2013

I wonder though.. if you essentially force someone to break a law are you not also guilty of breaking a law?
posted by edgeways at 8:22 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

This tweet from Dana Perino is making the rounds. It is the sort of thing I feel the compulsion to share out of confusion and horror, like a modern goatse.
posted by dinty_moore at 8:23 PM on October 1, 2013 [5 favorites]

123 anniversary of Yosemite ... and we closed her down.

Ironical maybe?

The Statue of Liberty was shut down as well.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 8:24 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

So are Customs and TSA officials considered essential because it would be interesting if suddenly people couldn't actually make flights or get goods into the country because we don't actually have the staff necessary to man those positions. I assume Homeland Security pretty much is going to be considered essential across the board but I'm not sure how many baggage checkers are going to be willing to sit and scan bags and passengers for an extended period of time without actually getting paid before using sick time to seek alternative employment opportunities.
posted by vuron at 8:30 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

I take it people have seen this NY Daily News cover?
posted by edgeways at 8:31 PM on October 1, 2013 [10 favorites]

dinty, that tweet is like a black hole; it sucks away your intelligence just to read it.
posted by emjaybee at 8:31 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

I wondered the exact same thing when I read this. Could it be that Ted Cruz et al. has a longer term strategy and (don't laugh) is smarter than we're giving him credit for?

Never heard of a political plan that included being down 50 points on the question in the polls.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:33 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

How would the Supreme Court even approach something like the President only having the choice of breaking one law or another?

The political question doctrine. Punt or don't grant cert.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:35 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

The President could always use the PATRIOT act to detain the Koch brothers and their henchmen / allies. It's worked in Russia.
posted by humanfont at 8:38 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

Just realized whose fault this is -- it's October, and nobody woke up Green Day.
posted by inigo2 at 8:40 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

Flunkie: "Sounds like Republican Congressional staffers should form a union."

I want to make sweet, sweet love to this comment and cook it breakfast in the morning.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:49 PM on October 1, 2013 [18 favorites]

Fox News is calling the shutdown the "government slimdown." In the same way bulimia is a weight-loss program, I suppose.
posted by dhens at 8:51 PM on October 1, 2013 [5 favorites]

So are Customs and TSA officials considered essential

Yes, but apparently not federal aviation inspectors, which, you know, seems mildly terrifying.
posted by mostly vowels at 8:54 PM on October 1, 2013 [10 favorites]

Dana "Cuban Missile what?" Perino is a treasure. Bless her heart. Just... so.. earnest.
posted by edgeways at 9:00 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

VikingSword:

I keep giving this example, because I think it's apt - they are the same kinds of forces as during the Civil War, (and again, in the South, mostly). They are fanatics and rebels, but have no very clear or complex ideology - they are rejectionists, who are fighting for what they perceive as their lifestyle and power. Never mind how incoherent it is. Mob rule is rarely coherent. But it is extremely dangerous.

This is a great comment. From outside the United States, this whole thing just seems incomprehensible, although that's perhaps because we have our own strategies for dealing with related problems.

I hope that the Democrats refuse to buckle on their signature reform. To make another Civil War reference, in shutting down the government, elements within the Republican party have merely told us what time of day it is. It is high noon. Thank God.
posted by curious.jp at 9:09 PM on October 1, 2013 [5 favorites]

This tweet from Dana Perino is making the rounds. It is the sort of thing I feel the compulsion to share out of confusion and horror, like a modern goatse.

In the name of all that is good and holy - what the fuck? Seriously, what the fuck.

Ah, good ol' Dana "No Terrorist Attacks Under Bush" Perino.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:10 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

Slate: How the government shutdown would be described in the US media if it was happening in another country.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:12 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

I kinda wonder why the Democrats don't add their own rider that just automatically creates single-payer healthcare. Let the Republicans defund the ACA, and slap on full on universal healthcare. Also, repeal the Patriot act while they're at it. I can dream, can't I?

That would make me giggle.

I'm really glad that they aren't; the Democrats are unanimous that if there's a fight about the ACA (which some Dems don't like), it should not be done with a gun held against the head of the Federal government. It's simple principle that seems to be gathering steam pealing off moderate Republicans. If the Dems started to do the same thing (however justified they were), it would start to play even more into the "both sides do it" news coverage.

Luckily, I think the news coverage is starting to break out of that. For every lazy front page, more and more articles of "No, it's not the same thing, and what the House is doing is insane and the Senate Republicans don't even agree". It's slowly working, though at a terrible price.

However, I want the Republicans to know that. I would love some Dem to say, "We could add the public option to the next CR . . . but of course we wouldn't because that would be misappropriating a government function for our temporary political gain. We could . . . but we would never."
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:17 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

The geography of Congress’s so-called suicide caucus.
posted by Artw at 9:28 PM on October 1, 2013 [15 favorites]

If it were to come down to it, wouldn't a peacefully negotiated secession be better than a civil war? Why would we want to fight to keep the "rejectionists" in our country to hold the US back from the progress it is capable of? I like what I'm seeing in this new trend of Obama's towards diplomacy and away from war in international relations. Maybe it could work at home as well.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:37 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

If it were to come down to it, wouldn't a peacefully negotiated secession be better than a civil war?

Is this meant to be satire?
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:43 PM on October 1, 2013 [5 favorites]

I hope so.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:46 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

And ever more relevant, some quotes from Lincoln about political intransigence and hostage taking (through Michael Hiltzik of the Los Angeles Times) - adjust for Repub/Demo as times have changed:

"In February 1860, Abraham Lincoln gave a speech at New York's Cooper Union that many historians believe catapulted him onto the national stage and into the presidency. It may even be more pertinent today for what he said about intransigent political blocs.

A few excerpts:

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. [...]

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action?

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!" [...]

A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper."
posted by VikingSword at 9:53 PM on October 1, 2013 [43 favorites]

Can someone explain the websites to me?

I mean, I get that the IT people aren't there if things go south, but the servers, data lines, etc are.
Why shut them down?
It should be lights out operation, for the most part.

Surely, the U.S. govt. isn't on a pay-as-you-go data plan?
posted by madajb at 10:28 PM on October 1, 2013 [3 favorites]

Why shut them down?

Like you say, the IT folk aren't working. If something goes wrong (a hack, or whatever) they'd have nobody available to fix. Easier just to take it down.

Plus, I think it drives a point home a little bit.
posted by inigo2 at 10:35 PM on October 1, 2013 [7 favorites]

I'm pretty sure that virtually all gov't websites have at least some functionality implying that there's someone on the other end doing something, such as reading "contact us" emails. Leaving it running implies services offered that aren't really available, and it's a lot easier to blank the site than to selectively disable features.

Also, I suspect a lot of federal employees are pretty happy right now that a lot of people are seeing something tangible about the shutdown and how it affects them, rather than drinking beer and making jokes about extra vacation for feds.
posted by fatbird at 10:36 PM on October 1, 2013 [6 favorites]

Elizabeth Warren
posted by Artw at 10:58 PM on October 1, 2013 [39 favorites]

(Elizabeth Warren 2016! WOO!)
posted by [insert clever name here] at 11:03 PM on October 1, 2013 [23 favorites]

If it were to come down to it, wouldn't a peacefully negotiated secession be better than a civil war?

Yes? If there is serious debate within a state or a province about secession there should be a referendum where the citizens are asked in plain language whether they wish to secede. If so, negotiations between the federal and breakaway governments over the terms of secession should begin immediately. It's really, really hard for a country to set up provisions for its own dismemberment that all sides will regard as legitimate (see the controversy over the Canadian Clarity Act) but it's possible and it's obligatory if a significant percentage of the population of any region favors separatism/sovereigntism.

Now remind me why we're talking about secession in a situation where all parties, however evil and destructive, consider themselves American and want to remain American?
posted by justsomebodythatyouusedtoknow at 11:26 PM on October 1, 2013 [2 favorites]

I do think the attitude of the Republican extremists is "So we killed government? Well that makes this even better! When the people realize that things work fine without the federal government, they'll join us in droves!"

Honestly, if this goes on, I'm going to start worrying about whether the congressperson entrances have fun detectors.
posted by happyroach at 11:29 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

Now remind me why we're talking about secession in a situation where all parties ... want to remain American?

I thought teapartiers were quite fond of the idea of secession. My bad.

teaparty.org - Secession petitions flood White House website
teaparty.org - Colorado to vote on secession
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:35 PM on October 1, 2013

I would have thought secession's desirability would closely follow a teaparty takeover.
posted by de at 11:38 PM on October 1, 2013 [1 favorite]

As always the Onion says it best: Greatest Country In World Unable To Keep William H. Gross Stamp Gallery Open
posted by Admira at 12:00 AM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

Like you say, the IT folk aren't working. If something goes wrong (a hack, or whatever) they'd have nobody available to fix. Easier just to take it down.

Maybe, but if something goes wrong, then shut it down.
You could leave the links to the documents up, at the very least.

The FCC, for example, has 15+ IT folks working through the shutdown.

It honestly feels like a case of 'I'm taking my ball and going home'.
posted by madajb at 12:04 AM on October 2, 2013

I'm trying to understand Boehner's position here more carefully and have a thought. If he doesn't capitulate he's at risk of losing his speakership to an ultra-conservative. That's bad for him personally but he probably realizes that's bad for the country as well. Ultimately the best outcome for the sane republicans — and democrats — is that, via the shutdown, the ultra-Rs lose in the court of public opinion and essentially are no longer able to cohere as a voting block in the House, saving Boehner's seat and the world.

What seems lacking in all this is a strong counter-narrative to combat the crazy right. Explaining to the American people just how dangerous the game their playing is, just how immature, and explaining the dire results if things go their way (both economically and procedurally).
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:15 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Everyone on MeFi is outraged at the shutdown. Good, I'm outraged too. But is there a parallel culture who is happy about it, proud of Cruz et al risking everything to defend America? Where are they? What are they saying?
posted by Nelson at 12:18 AM on October 2, 2013

Hyundai Motor will defer payments due from US federal employees affected by the partial government shutdown.

Good for them. They are making some really nice cars right now too, love my Sonata.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:22 AM on October 2, 2013 [12 favorites]

Nelson: "Everyone on MeFi is outraged at the shutdown. Good, I'm outraged too. But is there a parallel culture who is happy about it, proud of Cruz et al risking everything to defend America? Where are they? What are they saying?"

I believe this is what you're looking for.
posted by fireoyster at 12:27 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

"For this right wing minority, hostage taking is all they have left" - that Elizabeth Warren video was very good Artw, thank you.

I also think that Lincoln quote captures my sense of the way the modern Republican party behaves.

As a matter of interest, does the US government have any mechanisms for fixing the Republican attempt to game the system? We have a party that is a minority, that is very extreme in its views and that therefore has a disproportionate influence - and is making life miserable, even impossible, for many people. What can be done to bring them back into line? Are there any legal changes that could be made?

For example, I gather that the Republicans have gerrymandered the districts for congress in such a way that they are disproportionately well represented. How could that be put right?
posted by lucien_reeve at 1:59 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Because shit, we really need someone like Bill to get the real message out there. Like yesterday.

I disagree. The more Democrats scream and shout, the more we look like we lost and Cruz et al. won. Meanwhile, the polls remain heavily in our favor, and the best strategy seems to be to play out the rope the Republicans are energetically grasping and pulling in their direction. In time, surely they will find it a noose around their necks.

It seems like a full-on schism has been coming for a while now, but they keep trying to push it off.

Well, it's interesting because it's a schism neither claque actually wants. Personally, I have come to believe that the paucity of elected Democrats (i.e. gerrymandered House districts) is actually a sign that the next step is for moderate Republicans to switch parties and run as Democrats, conservative Democrats though they may be.

This is in general more often how US electoral politics actually works due to the various constraints in the system (which have come to heavily favor two-party politics).

The end result will be an extreme, Tea-Party-beholden GOP, unable to get elected in anything but a rump of the country. It may take a couple of cycles to get there, but the demographics do not seem to favor a big-tent, diverse Republican Party in the foreseeable future.

But is there a parallel culture who is happy about it, proud of Cruz et al risking everything to defend America? Where are they? What are they saying?

Well, I've offended and/or scared off most of the Republicans I used to know, but I did encounter this little [annotated] gem of unreality on someone else's post today:
Hey Don, how many of those votes [of the 5 million margin Obama won] were duplicates, how many were from dead people? Why didn't they count deployed Veterans votes? [rumor spread by a satire website, and no, I don't know what a "deployed veteran" is, either] How is it that Obunghole lost everywhere that had voter ID. [also false, he won 4 of 11] I call bullshit! Hussien might be your Muslim in Chief but he damned sure isn't mine, as a matter of fact, he along with his whole Administration as well as all RINO'S should be hung by the neck.

As you can see, the human mind has great capacity to rationalize its own choices with sufficient supportive non-facts.

But in actuality supporters of the shutdown strategy seem to only show up in about 1/6 of the electorate if the several recent polls are any indicator.
posted by dhartung at 2:04 AM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

dh, if that quote came from somebody I know personally, I would notify the Secret Service that he had made an assassination threat, which it is. This is the sad result of President Obama's five years of efforts to 'engage productively' with an opposition that basically wants him lynched.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:23 AM on October 2, 2013 [6 favorites]

If the House were to fail to raise the debt ceiling, and Obama simply ignored it, it would do unimaginable harm to the entire legislative branch as an institution. The president would have far more power, for years to come. Which is why they won't let it happen. The GOP is willing to play with fire by shutting down he government, but they're not going to destroy themselves on October 17.

Diane Swonk suggested in a CBC interview that the economic damage would be such that Obama would be compelled to act to prevent the US from defaulting, lawsuits over the resulting Constitutional crisis or no.

That she is a trained economist and not a political talking head makes me suspect that this is the true strategy of the Tea Party: to drive Obama into impeachment proceedings by pushing the country into default and forcing the President's hand.

To the extent that Republicans are trying to do an end run around funding legally-established laws and are happy to destroy the country in the process, I hope that those legislators responsible for this and previous debt ceiling situations are detained and arrested before October 17th, to be tried with RICO statutes covering repeated acts of extortion, securities fraud and obstruction of justice.

What Tea Party Republicans are doing would be considered (economic) terrorism in any other context, in that no one of any political stripe would tolerate the basic functionality of our system to be deliberately broken in this way.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:24 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

/takes all of america's nice things
/yes this is why
posted by obiwanwasabi at 3:58 AM on October 2, 2013 [9 favorites]

I'm getting that urge to punch Ron Christie that I get whenever stupid shit like this goes on. And I don't even think I've heard him on NPR about this. I just imagine what he'd say in his stupid smug-whine voice.
posted by angrycat at 4:16 AM on October 2, 2013

Blazecock Pileon: "To the extent that Republicans are trying to do an end run around funding legally-established laws and are happy to destroy the country in the process, I hope that those legislators responsible for this and previous debt ceiling situations are detained and arrested before October 17th, to be tried with RICO statutes covering repeated acts of extortion, securities fraud and obstruction of justice."

Unfortunately: "They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place." - Art 2 § 6, U.S. Const.

Treason, felony (in a Constitutional context), and breach of the peace are all well-defined law that would be very hard to squeeze past the Speech and Debate clause.
posted by fireoyster at 4:35 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

But is there a parallel culture who is happy about it, proud of Cruz et al risking everything to defend America?
http://www.policymic.com/articles/66021/government-shutdown-8-people-who-are-actually-happy-about-it

Most of my friends are liberal, so mostly I see the outrage. But among people who don't follow politics, I see a lot of "why don't they compromise" style comments, which is exactly what the Republicans want. If they can frame hostage-taking as a legitimate negotiating strategy, then they win, because popular pressure for "both sides to give something up" means they've advanced.

Essentially the bet that's been made by the GOP in this ploy is that the voters are too stupid to notice, and/or have a short enough attention span that they won't suffer for it at election time.
posted by CheeseDigestsAll at 4:37 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

I am hearing the term "insurrectionists" and "neo-confederate party" used more often - that about sums up my thinking.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:45 AM on October 2, 2013 [8 favorites]

I think that those opposed to economic suicide need to press for a discharge petition from their reps on a clean debt ceiling bill and cr.
posted by humanfont at 5:01 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

About 1500 employees at my company have been issued Stop Work Orders, mostly related to Air Force work but also a few other agencies. I am not allowed to go to my cubicle on the base. The company's main campus is going to have a huge influx of people who normally work at the base trying to find seating very soon, and none of us who have been exiled have any work to do.

The whole company is about 7,000 people - I can't imagine that idling 20% of the workforce is going to be sustainable for more than a couple days. I'm betting that if this goes on past the end of the week we'll be furloughed.
posted by backseatpilot at 5:14 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Is there any way to figure out how specific Representatives have voted on these CR votes? I see lots of press coverage but no bill or joint resolution numbers. thomas.loc.gov is even more confusing than normal with all the bills and counter-bills and motions-to-suspend-the-bills flying around.
posted by fireoyster at 5:27 AM on October 2, 2013

dh, if that quote came from somebody I know personally, I would notify the Secret Service that he had made an assassination threat,

I'm pretty certain they been round-the-clock busy since 2008.
posted by Artw at 5:27 AM on October 2, 2013

See also Washington Monument Syndrome.
posted by jeffburdges at 5:29 AM on October 2, 2013

As a matter of interest, does the US government have any mechanisms for fixing the Republican attempt to game the system? We have a party that is a minority, that is very extreme in its views and that therefore has a disproportionate influence - and is making life miserable, even impossible, for many people. What can be done to bring them back into line? Are there any legal changes that could be made?

For example, I gather that the Republicans have gerrymandered the districts for congress in such a way that they are disproportionately well represented. How could that be put right?

By winning at the ballot box. By repeatedly calling our representatives on important issues. The Left's weakness in this country is it is made up of people with a life. The Right doesn't have a life and loves calling their congressmen.

In other words, to win, we have to have a more participatory Left, to counter the nuts.
posted by Ironmouth at 5:38 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

So much for that widely touted Republican Lockstep.
posted by klarck at 5:43 AM on October 2, 2013

Corporate America sees little return from bet on GOP
posted by Artw at 5:45 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

How to kill ObamaCare and save the GOP
posted by Artw at 5:46 AM on October 2, 2013

That op-ed is something else. And by a guy who wrote, "The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide: How to Survive, Thrive, and Prosper During Obamageddon", no less.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 5:49 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

That op-ed is something else. And by a guy who wrote, "The Ultimate Obama Survival Guide: How to Survive, Thrive, and Prosper During Obamageddon", no less.

If they passed a law making it punishable by death to call this a government "slimdown," I mean, I wouldn't approve, but I wouldn't be out in the streets protesting, either.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 5:51 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

I dunno, I think his suggestion has some merits.
posted by Artw at 5:52 AM on October 2, 2013

I'm a little concerned that the collapse-of-empire thing is happening way ahead of schedule.
posted by forgetful snow at 6:00 AM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

There is a word beginning with C, we use it a lot in the UK, however its use is somewhat frowned upon here, but it is the most apt word for these people I can think of.

Cockney rhyming slang is your friend:

Bunch of right Jeremies...
posted by bumpkin at 6:01 AM on October 2, 2013 [6 favorites]

I dunno, I think his suggestion has some merits.

I'm not sure I understand his suggestion. He talks about "ObamaCare" like it is an actual health insurance plan. GIVE EVERYONE OBAMACARE, MAKE THEM ALL GET IT. That's not how it works; there's nothing to "give", other than subsidies and tax breaks. Feel free to re-explain what he's saying, because I really don't get it as he stated it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 6:01 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

The whole company is about 7,000 people - I can't imagine that idling 20% of the workforce is going to be sustainable for more than a couple days. I'm betting that if this goes on past the end of the week we'll be furloughed.

Maybe. Depends on how your employer is funded. If you're paid for, you're paid for, and your company sure as shit ain't gonna give the money they made selling your services back. It depends on how you're funded - which is a very complicated and involved subject I barely understand, and my wife does it for a living. Some parts of the government have money set aside for them independent of the budget and fiscal year spending. Especially in the DoD, Capital Funding means some projects/departments keep going for as long as they have money in their capital funds, so some parts of the government can keep going for a few months to a few years, and in some instances, can actually be funded by their industry partners - big contractors do this to avoid losing momentum on critical projects.

Again, this is the taster. The full four courses are coming with the debt ceiling - this will not be resolved until that comes to a head.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:03 AM on October 2, 2013

I would love to read a full discussion of who has standing to sue in the event of "illegal" bond sales to avoid default.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:04 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure I understand his suggestion. He talks about "ObamaCare" like it is an actual health insurance plan. GIVE EVERYONE OBAMACARE, MAKE THEM ALL GET IT. That's not how it works; there's nothing to "give", other than subsidies and tax breaks. Feel free to re-explain what he's saying, because I really don't get it as he stated it.

Right, you'd have to invent a single payer scheme to match his understanding of what "Obamacare" is, then implement it and wait to for the revolution spurred on by cheap accessible healthcare.

I just think the wait might be a bit longer than this guy does...
posted by Artw at 6:04 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

It makes no sense. Most Americans will keep their employer provided insurance. And large employers will actually be required to provide that insurance. So removing all exemptions means... federal employees will just keep their current federal insurance? Ok, I'm on board with that, but that can't be what the op ed is arguing for.
posted by miyabo at 6:05 AM on October 2, 2013

Ok, I'm on board with that, but that can't be what the op ed is arguing for.

I'm not sure the writer of that op ed knows what he is arguing for.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 6:07 AM on October 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

That she is a trained economist and not a political talking head makes me suspect that this is the true strategy of the Tea Party: to drive Obama into impeachment proceedings by pushing the country into default and forcing the President's hand.

As mentioned above, the House can vote to impeach, but the Senate needs a two-thirds majority to convict. Even if the GOP controlled the Senate, they don't have anywhere near the votes to do it, and IMO I think a number of GOP senators (anyone who hates Cruz, which is most of his colleagues) would vote against impeachment anyway.

TBH, I think ignoring the debt ceiling may just be the better option at this point. It's a shitty rule (only one other country in the world has a debt ceiling) that will invite disaster every year until the House GOP sheds the crazy caucus, which isn't until 2022 at the earliest. Obama can't be removed from office, and he removes a stupid trigger for constitutional crises, and despite what Americans may or may not think will be regarded as a the man who did the right thing (on this issue, at least) by the entire rest of the world and history.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:09 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

In times like this, I really wish Olivia Pope were a real person because she'd be on this shit, you guys.
posted by mostly vowels at 6:10 AM on October 2, 2013

So removing all exemptions means... federal employees will just keep their current federal insurance? Ok, I'm on board with that, but that can't be what the op ed is arguing for.

Congressional staff would have to purchase insurance on the exchanges out of pocket, and would not be eligible for any employer contribution from their employer, the federal government? That's the only "exemptions" that I can see remotely fitting, the other "exemptions" from "ObamaCare" mostly have to do with state waivers from the expansion of medicaid requirements, not the insurance market exchanges.

But no, the argument there make zero sense, as "ObamaCare" isn't really a thing in itself, rather than a system of various tax credits and subsidies for use on the national exchange markets for individual coverage from qualifying private plans. "Just give it to everyone" makes no damn sense...everyone already is eligible, and indeed required to buy coverage, assuming theyre not already covered by an employer plan, or medicaid.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:13 AM on October 2, 2013

T.D. Strange: "Congressional staff would have to purchase insurance on the exchanges out of pocket, and would not be eligible for any employer contribution from their employer, the federal government? "

Except part of the ACA is a mandate that employers with over fifty people gotta offer insurance...
posted by notsnot at 6:17 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Maybe, but if something goes wrong, then shut it down.
You could leave the links to the documents up, at the very least.

The FCC, for example, has 15+ IT folks working through the shutdown.

And I'm sure those people have very specific jobs to do, and shouldn't be on the hook to also do the jobs (maintaining servers, etc) that belong to people not currently allowed to work. So if someone hacks into a site and replaces all the download links to Rick Rolls, there is nobody to fix that. The people that would "shut it down"? They're at home. Even if they wanted to come in and work without pay, they're not even allowed to.

It honestly feels like a case of 'I'm taking my ball and going home'.

Even if this was true, why shouldn't they? Everyone should feel the effects of these Republican party decisions, not just the federal employees having paychecks stolen from them.
posted by inigo2 at 6:17 AM on October 2, 2013 [16 favorites]

Seems a bit odd to be outraged that a goverment shutdown involves a goverment shutdown.
posted by Artw at 6:19 AM on October 2, 2013 [15 favorites]

Americans Think GOP's Top Priority Is Troublemaking
posted by Artw at 6:23 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I wondered the exact same thing when I read this. Could it be that Ted Cruz et al. has a longer term strategy and (don't laugh) is smarter than we're giving him credit for?

But the Senate is the body that tries the President if (s)he's impeached- the House can vote to impeach, but there's no way a majority of the Senate will vote to impeach.

In 1986, the President was extraordinarily popular, in his second term, and his successor was primed and ready to take over. Congress did not impeach him (though the argument could clearly be made that he had committed high crimes or misdemeanors), and the transfer of power went smoothly.

In 1998, the President was extraordinarily popular, in his second term, and his successor was primed and ready to take over. Congress impeached him (to be technical, he was already impeached once the House voted -- the Senate merely voted on whether to convict him), and the transfer of power was interrupted when that successor felt he needed to run away from the most popular living member of his party. This allowed a person who was, at best, a marginal candidate to become President and basically start everything that we're currently dealing with right now (with the exception of health care reform, though ignoring the issue for eight years didn't help).

In 2013, the President is extraordinarily popular (considering the state of the country), in his second term, and his successor is primed and ready to take over. Congress... I leave the remainder of this paragraph as an exercise for the reader.
posted by Etrigan at 6:27 AM on October 2, 2013 [12 favorites]

In 2013, the President is extraordinarily popular (considering the state of the country), in his second term, and his successor is primed and ready to take over. Congress... I leave the remainder of this paragraph as an exercise for the reader.

I love exercise, so I'll try: Obama can't break 45% approval, and his successor is an old but loveable doofus who has no shot of winning his own party's primary. So the analogy doesn't seem to apply.

Dammit, I pulled a hammy.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:33 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I love exercise, so I'll try: Obama can't break 45% approval, and his successor is an old but loveable doofus who has no shot of winning his own party's primary. So the analogy doesn't seem to apply.

I don't think anyone believes that Biden is the successor (or ever has believed it), up to and including Biden. He was a sop to the worries about foreign policy and inexperience (see Bush-Cheney) without having to "take a loss" by letting Clinton onto the ticket.
posted by Etrigan at 6:36 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Why the Health Care Law Scares the G.O.P.
posted by Artw at 6:38 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

The unreality party: 'It's Getting Better For Us'

However, as public frustration increases, I do think that Obama and the dems need to carefully refute the "unwilling to negotiate" perception. For an administration that is so incredibly stellar at campaign messaging, the in-office messaging generally sucks.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:40 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Those Banana Republicans
posted by Artw at 6:46 AM on October 2, 2013

There is no clear successor to Obama. Biden would like the nod, but he does not have a strong national base. Clinton has her organization in place, but she may be too divisive in her own party to win the nomination - and she faces strong competition from Elizabeth Warren and Deval Patrick, just to name two.

On the other hand, the GOP bench is pretty fucking empty, with the possible exception of Chris Christie. Even an affable tabula rasa, a'la Bush II, is nowhere to be found. You have hardcore wingnuts, or you have unlikable establishment stalwarts. Either variety of candidate will be stone cold leveled by a Democrat running as a centrist.

Plus, unlike Clinton's scandal, where it can be argued he brought it on himself through his moral failures, this impeachment will be seen as an attempt at a legislative coup d'etat, and do vastly more damage to the GOP than to the dems.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:46 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

she faces strong competition from Elizabeth Warren

Oh please please please ... I would so vote for her. Hell, I'd get out and knock on doors for her. Hilary ... meh.
posted by freecellwizard at 6:48 AM on October 2, 2013 [15 favorites]

Americans support troublemaking because the status quo has lost its legitimacy. Yes, the Tea party is racist, but Tea party voters complain about the DEA, TSA, etc. too.

All the Koch brothers, et al. have done is mold that existing disconnect into action that's harmless or beneficial to their ideology, oil interests, etc., although that's quite problematic, neutering them cannot address the underlying illegitimacy.

We need not merely a more participatory left, but a left that embraces the lefty nuts, takes a stand, causes its own rucks, and inspires people.
posted by jeffburdges at 6:48 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

I'm not sure I understand his suggestion. He talks about "ObamaCare" like it is an actual health insurance plan.

I think that about 2/3s of the people so worked up about ObamaCare believe that. They think it is something like the public option or a single payer plan, and that's why you get these weird complaints about "Congress exempting itself."* Of course, that's the impression you would have if all you knew was that Fox News was calling it a socialist scheme and a government takeover of healthcare. How much rage would there really be if people understood that it's just subsidized insurance plans, that you have the choice of many options, and for many people with low incomes, the government will help you pay for any plan you choose? Hard to sell that as tyranny.

It's more and more clear to me that the Democrats messed up badly by allowing the "Obamacare" nickname to catch on. It sounds like it's probably something like Medicare, which many people perceive as okay for old folks with no options, but an inferior plan to what they have now. Worse, it ties the Affordable Care Act to a particular political figure. I like to think I've pretty well informed and fair minded, but if the Republicans had passed this exact same law in 2006 and everyone called it BushCare, it would be hard to be super excited about a plan that was named for the modern president I despise the most. And that's how my cousins feel about Obama.

You'd have to do some research to determine what the best moniker would have been, but something like "TrueChoice" would have gone down smoother, emphasizing that for a lot of people, they will have a choice in health insurance plans for the first time. Even just consistently insisting on calling it "Affordable Care" would be an improvement, and has the virtue of actually being what this plan is called. But adopting "ObamaCare" was a misstep.

*Yes, of course, not only did they not exempt themselves, whatever that would mean, they gave up their employer provided plan to purchase insurance on the exchanges. It's the polar opposite of exempting themselves.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 6:50 AM on October 2, 2013 [6 favorites]

"Treason" is close, but the more precise term is "sedition."
posted by whuppy at 6:51 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

"Obamacare" is an awesome moniker. It will be Obama's legacy. Eventually it will be said always with gratefulness. I hope.
posted by agregoli at 6:55 AM on October 2, 2013 [16 favorites]

Ooh, can the Republicans just straight up kick the Tea Party members out instead of the moderates leaving the party? Blunts that little primary threat when they don't have the funding and support of the GOP to put up a challenge. It seems like a full-on schism has been coming for a while now, but they keep trying to push it off.

Damn, forgot to put this anecdote on my earlier comment:

I live in Michigan's 11th Congressional District. It is crazy Republican here, and was gerrymandered more so to benefit Rep. Thad McCotter (previously), who ended up kicked off the ballot for election fraud in 2012. The only remaining Republican primary contender was Kerry Bentivolio, who was... let's say "troubling" (probably yelled at kids while a substitute teacher, definitely appeared in a wackadoo YouTube video before he tried to get into politics, totally unprepared to be a United States Representative). The local and state GOP tried desperately to get someone else on the ballot, to the point of fully funding a write-in candidate who was more moderate, more experienced, and more electable. It didn't work, and the only reason Bentivolio won, even in this heavily Republican district, was racism (feel free to MeMail me for a longer explanation of why I say that). He has since spent all of his time establishing his Tea Party and Republican bona fides. His email to constituents on the shutdown was a note-perfect parody of GOP/TP talking points, except he wasn't kidding. He has voted "Yes" on every single Obamacare-defunding vote, and he is proud of that.

Rep. Bentivolio is facing a primary challenge next year. From. The. Right. Not from the establishment GOP who just want a more experienced and nuanced member representing MI-11. Not from a professional politician who thinks Bentivolio is weak. From a lawyer who's never run for anything before in his life but says, "Washington is not working and needs a leader with the common sense and courage to tell the truth. Someone who will spend time helping the constituents of the 11th district, as opposed to someone who is only concentrated on getting reelected." And he's gaining traction.

The Tea Party is straight-up nihilistic. They do not care how good you are, how smart you are, how senior you are, how anything you are, as long as you are farther right than what's currently in there. They will burn shit down if they think they can loot the ashes.
posted by Etrigan at 6:55 AM on October 2, 2013 [47 favorites]

Sounds like Republican Congressional staffers should form a union.

I think it's worth noting that the White House Office of Management and Budget considered and rejected unionization not too long ago.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 6:58 AM on October 2, 2013

I think the "Obamacare" moniker will die once he leaves office. By that point, nobody will need to call it anything; it'll just be part of the landscape.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:00 AM on October 2, 2013

I haven't heard one person outside of this mess, meaning a civilian, call it anything but Obamacare. I wouldn't be too sure.
posted by agregoli at 7:15 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

The consequences of callousness

Republicans would have the public believe that the shutdown doesn't much matter, since the federal government is an inherently awful burden that Americans neither wants nor needs. The problem, of course, is that the GOP's shutdown is causing real harm to real people, and every tragic consequence is a reminder, not only of the far-right's party's callous indifference, but of the importance of government itself.

Ned Resnikoff reported yesterday, for example, on several hundred preschool-aged children who can no longer go to a Head Start center in Alabama because its 240 employees have been furloughed without pay.

The Wall Street Journal had a related item on the shutdown's real-world effects:
At the National Institutes of Health, nearly three-quarters of the staff was furloughed. One result: director Francis Collins said about 200 patients who otherwise would be admitted to the NIH Clinical Center into clinical trials each week will be turned away. This includes about 30 children, most of them cancer patients, he said.
Got that? Children with cancer will be turned away from NIH clinical trials. Why? Because House Republicans won't take a center-right budget deal that enjoys bipartisan support.

On Fox News yesterday, a prominent far-right pundit said the shutdown is irrelevant because the "worst thing that happens is some museums close." Another prominent far-right radio host boasted yesterday that the shutdown is "a dream for conservatives."

Yes, for others, it's a nightmare.

posted by zombieflanders at 7:18 AM on October 2, 2013 [32 favorites]

Probably next will come the conspiracy theories about how any negative effects of the shutdown are either faked or rigged by Democrats.
posted by Artw at 7:22 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

What's this talking point about unions being exempted from the ACA? I keep hearing it parroted, but can't find anything about it. The opposite, in fact, Union leaders wanted a special exemption to grandfather in existing union plans and they were denied.
posted by codacorolla at 7:22 AM on October 2, 2013

Would the Government be Shuttered if Obamacare were Romneycare?
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:26 AM on October 2, 2013

On the other hand, the GOP bench is pretty fucking empty, with the possible exception of Chris Christie.

Christie obviously has ambitions, and he's talked up a lot as a possibility, but I just don't see it, really. I don't see him making it out of a national primary. I mean, I'm not claiming with anything near metaphysical certitude that he won't win, but... Chris Christie does not suffer fools gladly, and his party is full of fools.
posted by Flunkie at 7:32 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

What's this talking point about unions being exempted from the ACA?

Per Politifact, it is a Pants On Fire lie:

An ad from the Republican controlled campaign group Crossroads GPS asserts that unions are exempt from the new health care law as a political favor from President Barack Obama.

The ad shows union leaders and Obama speaking in favor of health care reform, then shows a Fox News anchor asking, "Is the Obama administration exempting some from complying with the new health care law as a political favor?"
...
Our ruling

In ruling on this statement, we understand that the Obama administration would hardly admit to it if it were giving unions special treatment. But looking at the numbers of waivers that have been given to both union and non-union groups, we don’t see any pattern that would support a case for special treatment. The number of waivers are a small sample of all health plans, and many more waivers were given to big companies and corporations. We looked for additional information or evidence on this point and didn’t find it.

But there are additional problems with the ad. The ad doesn’t mention that the waivers only apply to annual coverage limits, that they’re intended to be in place only until 2014 and that many for-profit companies have received the same waivers. It gives the impression that unions are entirely exempt from the health care law, which they are not.

Because the ad gives the impression that unions are exempt from the entire law, and because it’s evidence for special treatment is so thin, we rate this claim Pants on Fire.

posted by Etrigan at 7:34 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

"Obamacare" is an awesome moniker. It will be Obama's legacy. Eventually it will be said always with gratefulness. I hope.

Well, by some it will be said with gratefulness and misunderstanding: "Keep the government out of my Obamacare!"
posted by Flunkie at 7:35 AM on October 2, 2013 [19 favorites]

zombieflanders: "Republicans would have the public believe that the shutdown doesn't much matter, since the federal government is an inherently awful burden that Americans neither wants nor needs."

This bears repeating. All this talk about it being about Obamacare and/or the debt ceiling is just a misdirection. I have this feeling that the real goal is the shutdown and dismantling of the Federal Government, and that's why all the "negotiation" has been of the my way or the highway variety.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 7:37 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I think the point is that "Obamacare" will go away as a term because there is no "Obamacare" health plan that you can purchase or own, right? It's just health exchanges and you're purchasing a private plan from some other provider. Once the ACA is established, it will just be how healthcare insurance operates in this country. I don't see how in ten years you would be able to claim either "thank god for Obamacare" or "down with Obamacare" -- it wouldn't make sense.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:39 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

John Hodgman Retweets Dozens Of Health Nightmares
posted by madamjujujive at 7:40 AM on October 2, 2013 [22 favorites]

this is the true strategy of the Tea Party: to drive Obama into impeachment proceedings by pushing the country into default and forcing the President's hand.

Maybe. But given that the GOP doesn't know whether to boast about the shutdown or blame Democrats, it isn't clear to me that they have a strategy.* Rep. King's defense of the shutdown, “Because we’re right, simply because we’re right,” isn't the remark of an man with a strategy, but of a zealot on a mission.

*"Are my methods unsound? I don't see any method at all, sir."
posted by octobersurprise at 7:42 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

The Government Can't Even Figure Out How To Shut Down Its Websites In A Reasonable Way
posted by jeffburdges at 7:45 AM on October 2, 2013

Has anything Americans say ever had to conform to making sense? I'll be surprised if Obamacare fades away to obscurity.
posted by agregoli at 7:49 AM on October 2, 2013

Has anything Americans say ever had to conform to making sense? I'll be surprised if Obamacare fades away to obscurity.

We can test this. Do people in Mass still say that they have "Romneycare"? Saying that you have "Medicare" makes sense -- a funded part of government, called Medicare, pays your medical bills. Obamacare is, well, it's just a law establishing certain restrictions to insurers and insurance exchanges.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 7:50 AM on October 2, 2013

Well, by some it will be said with gratefulness and misunderstanding: "Keep the government out of my Obamacare!"

"I've been on welfare and food stamps...did anyone help me?" [Craig T.] Nelson said, perhaps not realizing that welfare and food stamps are actually forms of government aid.
posted by inigo2 at 7:51 AM on October 2, 2013 [20 favorites]

I've never heard it referred to as Romneycare, so shrug? YMMV.
posted by agregoli at 7:52 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

We can test this. Do people in Mass still say that they have "Romneycare"?

Only when we're arguing with our New Hampshire Tea Party relatives about Obamacare.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:52 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

"I've been on welfare and food stamps...did anyone help me?" [Craig T.] Nelson said, perhaps not realizing that welfare and food stamps are actually forms of government aid.

Not An Onion Article.
posted by Artw at 7:54 AM on October 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

I think the point is that "Obamacare" will go away as a term because there is no "Obamacare" health plan that you can purchase or own, right?

I agree. After a while people will just know to go to their state exchanges to purchase health insurance if they don't get it from their employer. It'll just be called "buying insurance." As many people will know that Obama was the lead figure in health insurance exchanges as currently know that LBJ gave us Medicare. (Not many.) It's a divisive name that hurts support in the short term without conveying much long term advantage. It started with the GOP, after all. If they thought it didn't advantage them politically, they would never have used it.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 7:55 AM on October 2, 2013

Has anything Americans say ever had to conform to making sense? I'll be surprised if Obamacare fades away to obscurity.
We can test this. Do people in Mass still say that they have "Romneycare"?

Did they ever? I honestly don't know why, but I had been under the impression that the word "Romneycare" was a backformation from "Obamacare".

In any case, I tend to think that the argument "No one will call it Obamacare because there is no health insurance plan that is called Obamacare" might be parsing things a little too fine.
posted by Flunkie at 7:59 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

And my only point is I believe it will come around to hurt them in the end, using that term. People in the short term are gonna love Obamacare.
posted by agregoli at 7:59 AM on October 2, 2013

DC Unemployment, for furloughed workers in DC.

And Fed workers in MD.

And Virginia.
posted by inigo2 at 8:00 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I honestly don't know why, but I had been under the impression that the word "Romneycare" was a backformation from "Obamacare".

Google search, Romneycare -obamacare, 2005-2007. There was some use of it, but it definitely became a bigger thing when Romney was running against Obama.
posted by Etrigan at 8:04 AM on October 2, 2013

The Washington Post live updates on the shitdown are good to follow. I just wish they would publish these as a feed.
posted by exogenous at 8:04 AM on October 2, 2013

Okay, I guess my question is: what exactly is the "it" that people will be referring to when they say "Obamacare"? Are you suggesting that Obamacare will just replace any reference to a general discussion of "the way health insurance works in these United States"? Ok, maybe? I just can't imagine how it would even be used in ten years.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:06 AM on October 2, 2013

I think what we have is really a kind of dysfunctional three party dynamic operating as if it was still only a two party system. The Tea Party should just run as The Tea Party, not as Republicans. But our electoral system disincentivizes the schism that actually needs to take place and so we end up with John Boehner doing a ass of a job because he really is not a competent leader-in-crisis. Under normal circumstances he may have been adequate but when the shit hits the wall it's all "er.... please don't hurt me Mr Cruz"
posted by edgeways at 8:09 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

OMG, could you find anything less important to argue about than what people are going to call this a decade down the line?
posted by five fresh fish at 8:09 AM on October 2, 2013 [8 favorites]

I am guessing being on "Obamacare" will come to mean anyone who doesn't get insurance through their job
posted by rosswald at 8:09 AM on October 2, 2013 [8 favorites]

@alexis_levinson Members of congress have formed a receiving line for WWII vets who are entering the memorial

So they're (still) establishing photo ops instead of working to end the shutdown. Greaaaaat.
posted by troika at 8:10 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

OMG, could you find anything less important to argue about than what people are going to call this a decade down the line?

You're allowed to keep scrolling, or even use your Back button.
posted by Etrigan at 8:11 AM on October 2, 2013 [8 favorites]

Leaked emails show that before the House speaker demanded an end to health-care subsidies for congressional staffers, he worked behind the scenes to procure them.
posted by edgeways at 8:12 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

From the New Yorker article that Artw linked above:

These eighty members [who signed a letter promising to defund Obamacare] represent just eighteen per cent of the House and just a third of the two hundred and thirty-three House Republicans. They were elected with fourteen and a half million of the hundred and eighteen million votes cast in House elections last November, or twelve per cent of the total. In all, they represent fifty-eight million constituents. That may sound like a lot, but it’s just eighteen per cent of the population.

Democracy is broken when 18% of the population can hold our economy hostage.
posted by desjardins at 8:12 AM on October 2, 2013 [19 favorites]

The Sad and Predictable Death of the "Fund Our Veterans" Republican Gambit
posted by Artw at 8:14 AM on October 2, 2013

Rick Nolan, Dem Rep, Introduces Bill Blocking Congressional Pay During Government Shutdown

A few hitches w/ the bill introduction timing, but glad to see this issue getting more mention. While we're at it, can we please kill the salaried-for-life bullshit perk, too?
posted by yoga at 8:14 AM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

Oh, and term limits, too, please.

Is this what they mean by October Surprise?
posted by yoga at 8:16 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Rick Nolan, Dem Rep, Introduces Bill Blocking Congressional Pay During Government Shutdown

A few hitches w/ the bill introduction timing, but glad to see this issue getting more mention.

For this one, it directly violates the 27th Amendment: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened." If you want it in place for the next one, maybe.

While we're at it, can we please kill the salaried-for-life bullshit perk, too?

You mean the bullshit about how they get full salary for life?

Oh, and term limits, too, please.

It's not the senior members of Congress who are causing this problem.
posted by Etrigan at 8:21 AM on October 2, 2013 [18 favorites]

This article is from 3 years ago, but I wonder if Democrats should start pressuring moderate Republicans to consider such a move, say if the Ds pledge to support a Moderate R for Speakership or somesuch.
posted by edgeways at 8:22 AM on October 2, 2013

I wonder if Democrats should start pressuring moderate Republicans to consider such a move, say if the Ds pledge to support a Moderate R for Speakership or somesuch.

It's still very much an open question as to whether there still is such a thing as a "moderate Republican". At this point the burden is on those claiming there is as much as evolution or climate change deniers, the evidence hasn't been there for years.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:24 AM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

(Nolan is my Rep, I've met him and he's a good guy. replaced Tea Partier 1 timer Chip Craavack, who displaced looooong timer Jim Oberstar, Craavack was a joke, and Obserstar was ok, but I like Nolan better.
posted by edgeways at 8:25 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Chip Craavack

That is the name of a sci-fi lava person.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:28 AM on October 2, 2013 [31 favorites]

I stand corrected on the salary for life. At least the formal salary for life, anyway. Croneyism knows no boundaries, I would imagine.

Etrigan: Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are junior members of congress?
posted by yoga at 8:32 AM on October 2, 2013

Hey America. It's Canada, your neighbour? Sorry to bug you. You know, we've had our differences over the years - you know what I'm talking aboot - but I'd like to think that we're more than just neighbours, but also good friends.

And as your friend, I just want to say that you aren't looking too well right now. And me and the wife and kids over here, well, we're just worried about you is all. Here, my wife baked you an apple pie (your favourite) and I brought you some Timmie's too. Oh, you're only drinking tea now? That's too bad.

Anyways, just wanted to stop by and say get better soon. If you need some help around the place - maybe want us to help clean it up, take care of things for a few days while you get over whatever this thing is, we could do that. Can't promise there won't be a backyard hockey rink installed while we're at it or maybe one or two other changes (like maybe locking up all your guns), but we like to fix things and pitch in where we can.

You really do look awful. Been to see your doctor? Oh right, too expensive. Gotcha.

Well, let us know. Willing to help, but really don't want to catch what you have right now either, so maybe let's keep the conversation to the phone or internet from now on, eh? And sorry again to drop in unannounced.
posted by nubs at 8:34 AM on October 2, 2013 [19 favorites]

That is the name of a sci-fi lava person.

Yeah it is.. it's even better if you say it loud and with force...

it was quiet, too quiet then...CHIP CRAAVACK!!!

his supporters where, um, a bit loopy.
he's moved out to New Hampshire now.
posted by edgeways at 8:35 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

From Robert Costa today: "Pushing back against Reid and forcing him to cut a deal is another leadership objective. Behind the scenes, they’re irritated by his daily killing of anything the House passes and are eager to make sure he shares some of the political pain from the shutdown."

Share the political pain? Just for historical documentary purposes I want to note that children with cancer are being denied entry into clinical trials so that John Boehner can try to save face.
posted by audi alteram partem at 8:36 AM on October 2, 2013 [9 favorites]

Rick Nolan, Dem Rep, Introduces Bill Blocking Congressional Pay During Government Shutdown

A few hitches w/ the bill introduction timing, but glad to see this issue getting more mention.

I understand the emotion here, but frankly, the congress-creatures who'd be bothered by losing their ordinary paychecks aren't the congress-creatures causing the problem. I think a move like this would pressure the wrong people to do the wrong thing.
posted by tyllwin at 8:38 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

I'm Robert Costa of National Review and I know why the government has shut down. Ask me anything.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:39 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

I'm not sure I can handle so much condescension from a country with an electoral system that keeps putting a completely unlikeable right-winger from Alberta in charge.

Here's a deal: get an NDP prime minister in place and you can come down and install all the backyard hockey rinks you want. Fair?
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 8:40 AM on October 2, 2013 [11 favorites]

Anyways, just wanted to stop by and say get better soon. If you need some help around the place

Wanna trade Ted Cruz for Rob Ford?
posted by octobersurprise at 8:40 AM on October 2, 2013 [9 favorites]

From the link about post-retirement benefits for members of Congress:

Members of Congress are eligible for a pension at age 62 if they have completed at least five years of service. They are eligible for a pension at age 50 if they have completed 20 years of service, or at any age after completing 25 years of service.

That last part is so weird - there is no possible way that a member of Congress can qualify under it without also qualifying under at least one of the other parts. If they have completed 25 years of service, then they are necessarily at least 50 years old (55 if they're a senator), as the Constitution requires that a representative must be at least 25 years old, and a senator at least 30.

I wonder if it was put in as some sort of way-out-there contingency in case some future amendment says that 20 year olds can now be representatives, or if it was put there without any thought whatsoever, or if it was just some loudmouth insisting on it without understanding it's not necessary and everybody else just saying "fine, fine, we'll put it in".
posted by Flunkie at 8:40 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

I understand the emotion here, but frankly, the congress-creatures who'd be bothered by losing their ordinary paychecks aren't the congress-creatures causing the problem. I think a move like this would pressure the wrong people to do the wrong thing.

I'm not entirely sure all those TPs have personal deep pockets, any more so then the average Representative. I do think it's a symbolic resolution and wouldn't pass if Boehner would let it come up. but I also don't think it's a terrible idea. 800,000 people are not getting paychecks another 535 is peanuts
posted by edgeways at 8:44 AM on October 2, 2013

Let me know when Reid and the Senate vote on a budget. [...] It has been years the Senate has neglected this basic function.

They passed a budget on March 23, 2013.

Your talking points are sadly out of date. Maybe try again?
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:45 AM on October 2, 2013 [31 favorites]

brent, I believe the Senate passed an FY2014 budget on March 23, 2013.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 8:45 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Let me know when Reid and the Senate vote on a budget. Not continuing resolutions that keep gov't funded, an actual vote on a yearly spending plan. If you can find the law or vote on a proposed budget you can see how far apart both sides are since it has been years the Senate has neglected this basic function.

Probably because the Teabagger caucus will just replace anything they pass with the Ryan budget, whats the point. Also, the budget deal from 2011 was supposed to set spending guidelines for 10 years, so, Red herring is Red.
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:47 AM on October 2, 2013

See You In Hell, Orange Man

So the conviction that Obama will eventually cave on the debt limit is what is making it possible for Boehner to walk the path Ted Cruz and Jim DeMint and their House minions have laid out for him.

Now I don’t know anything about the president’s relationship with Boehner. But it’s becoming a matter of national security for him to find some way to take him aside, maybe give the Speaker a cigarette from his secret stash, and say: “I will see you in Hell before I negotiate over the debt limit. And if you let a default happen, I will devote the rest of my presidency to making sure you, personally, bear the blame, and go down in history with our most despised traitors and criminals. For generations, little school children in Ohio will cross themselves and make hex signs when your name is mentioned. So do not, do not, go back and tell your crazy people they can win if they just stick together.”

This sort of attitude adjustment needs to happen sooner rather than later, before Boehner takes another step down the path he is currently contemplating.

posted by zombieflanders at 8:47 AM on October 2, 2013 [25 favorites]

Hey America. It's Canada, your neighbour? Sorry to bug you. You know, we've had our differences over the years - you know what I'm talking aboot - but I'd like to think that we're more than just neighbours, but also good friends.

Stop it with the condenscion already. Jeez, sometimes my fellow citizens really chap my ass with the completely unwarranted smugness.
posted by bumpkin at 8:49 AM on October 2, 2013 [8 favorites]

And that Senate vote was signed by the President to become law?
posted by brent at 8:49 AM on October 2, 2013

And that Senate vote was signed by the President to become law?

And that Ryan budget was signed by the President to become law?
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:50 AM on October 2, 2013

Wanna trade Ted Cruz for Rob Ford?

Ha ha ha ha!!!!

Umm, no.
posted by bumpkin at 8:51 AM on October 2, 2013

And that Senate vote was signed by the President to become law?

This is called "moving the goalposts."
posted by Elementary Penguin at 8:52 AM on October 2, 2013 [20 favorites]

Moving the goalposts has also been shut down.
posted by Etrigan at 8:53 AM on October 2, 2013 [8 favorites]

brent: "And that Senate vote was signed by the President to become law?"

This is a blatant case of you moving the goalposts, but I'll bite:

The Senate passed a budget, and the House passed its own budget. If you remember your Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just a Bill" cartoon, what then happens is the two chambers meet in a conference committee to hammer out their differences. However, John Boehner has blocked this from happening despite 18 separate requests to do so.

But thanks for playing!
posted by tonycpsu at 8:53 AM on October 2, 2013 [49 favorites]

That last part is so weird - there is no possible way that a member of Congress can qualify under it without also qualifying under at least one of the other parts.

You'd have to look at the legislation and regulations, but it's at least possible that MCs with previous civilian federal service can shift that to a credit on their congressional retirement. Congressional retirement is kinda weird, but it's actually one of the standard federal packages. The other folks on the "congressional" plan are jobs where there's a substantial chance of a truncated career -- IIRC secret service agents and the like but I haven't glanced at that in forever.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 8:55 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Etrigan: Mitch McConnell and John Boehner are junior members of congress?

McConnell and Boehner are being held hostage by the new kids in town. Not that they're blameless, but they're not the root cause of this problem, which is a bunch of Tea Partiers who have spent less time in Congress than I've spent in the shirt I'm currently wearing.
posted by Etrigan at 8:56 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

The Government Can't Even Figure Out How To Shut Down Its Websites In A Reasonable Way

Duhhhhh - the government should not HAVE TO figure out how to shut down websites, reasonably or otherwise because the government should not shut down.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:58 AM on October 2, 2013 [10 favorites]

With congressional plans, is it possible military service could be included in their years-of-service? My understanding is that it is counted, for example, with USPS employees (which is obviously a separate govt structure, but possibly sharing similarities).
posted by inigo2 at 8:58 AM on October 2, 2013

Posing for photo ops with WWII vets

Ya know, mugging for the camera when you are one of the few federal employees getting paid today while the majority aren't is incredibly tacky. Get the fuck back in your office and at least pretend you're working to end this clusterfuck!
posted by cmfletcher at 9:01 AM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

OMG, could you find anything less important to argue about than what people are going to call this a decade down the line?

In this poll there is a nine point difference in support for the "Affordable Care Act" versus "Obamacare." I can't think of many strategic changes that would make a bigger difference in support for plan than being more careful about framing. The GOP is great at it. The Dems don't even try.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:05 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Email from a local theater:

The federal government may have shut down, but The Capitol Steps have arrived, direct from Washington and will perform tonight at the Harris Center at 7:30 PM. Who better to make sense of these current events than the troupe of former congressional staffers who have injected humor into politics for over 30 years.

To help brighten the day for those caught in the middle of the budget impasse, the Harris Center is offering TWO FREE TICKETS to this show for any currently furloughed worker - call the ticket office to reserve your seats at (916) 608-6888 and then bring your furlough notice or government ID when picking up your tickets.

A former congressional staffer comedy troupe? Doesn't strike me as a hotbed for honing your funny, but hey free tickets!
posted by Big_B at 9:07 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

It's not the senior members forcing this government shutdown, but it's absolutely the senior members maintaining our underlying problems, which inspire the Tea party.

In my lifetime, the anti-establishment right has risen up at least twice : First, Ross Perot's Reform Party was integrated back into the Republican party by Gingrich's "revolution". Gingrich conveniently ignored all their meaningful reforms, like term limits, reduced spending, and reduced military action. Second, the Tea party movement was integrated by the Kochs spending enough for electoral victories.

Imagine if all the money stopped backing Tea party candidates, like maybe the Koch bros disappear. All the Tea party candidates must either cozy up to the establishment or lose their seats. Does that solve anything? Not really. Those disaffected right-wing voters will rise up again because actual issues create them, issues growing worse during our empire's decline. And any established interest that faces a serious reality check will again manipulate them, ala Oil now.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:09 AM on October 2, 2013

A former congressional staffer comedy troupe? Doesn't strike me as a hotbed for honing your funny, but hey free tickets!

The Capitol Steps are generally pretty funny stuff (like any comedy troupe, there are some duds).
posted by inigo2 at 9:10 AM on October 2, 2013

Let me know when Reid and the Senate vote on a budget.

Ha ha ha ha ha. That one wins five Pinocchio noses.

Also, the "refuse to negotiate" and "refuse to come to conference committee" Democrats have been repeatedly rebuffed, as noted above, on requests to conference on the budget. Cite.
posted by bearwife at 9:11 AM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

The financial impact of a cancellation of Saturday's Air Force-Navy game could result in upwards of $4 million in lost revenue.

Less bad than keeping kids from cancer treatments, but way to go Boehner.
posted by inigo2 at 9:16 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

So...the Astronomy Picture of the Day site is down (operated out of the Goddard Space Flight Center, site also down)...alright, now I'm MAD. (the veteran benefits, 800,000 govt workers, museum and public parks, and children both starving and with cancer might have contributed to my mood as well)

Guillotines+Republican Oligarch Terrorists NOW.
(yes our government has ROT...it's time to cut it off)
posted by sexyrobot at 9:16 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

I see your frustrated vets visiting a closed monuments and up you with 200 sick people including 30 children who are frustrated by closed clinical trials... I don't advocate the cheap trick of dems posing for photo opps over this, but the optics would be on their side.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:19 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

The Democrats avoid framing the issues compellingly because they'd rather loose than undermine their corporate masters by spreading damaging ideology.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:20 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

American healthcare was already socialized by Reagan, we’re just fighting about how to pay for it
posted by Artw at 9:20 AM on October 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

Wanna trade Ted Cruz for Rob Ford?

Pretty sure Ted Cruz has a no trade clause with Canada.
posted by nubs at 9:26 AM on October 2, 2013

And the US budget Alert has a summary of events. Yes 18 requests and the linked TPM article "Next up, the Senate will have to reconcile their own budget with the House's own budget," So at what point is a committee going to decide anything? Seems Reid is rejecting anything the House submits. Why hold a committe if neither side will budge? The same can be said for the Immigration reform of how the Senate passed a version, but yet does not contain anything from the House.
posted by brent at 9:31 AM on October 2, 2013

Chip Craavack

That is the name of a sci-fi lava person.

Maybe some kind of inhumanoid.

I just discovered this yesterday and it kind of blows my mind.
posted by curious nu at 9:31 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

Congressional leaders have been summoned. I so hope Obama doesn't cave.
posted by Wordwoman at 9:32 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Some in GOP Not Heeding Old Big Business Allies
posted by Artw at 9:32 AM on October 2, 2013

brent: "So at what point is a committee going to decide anything? Seems Reid is rejecting anything the House submits."

At this point, the goalposts are out in the parking lot being thrown up on by hung-over tailgaters.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:33 AM on October 2, 2013 [17 favorites]

Congressional leaders have been summoned. I so hope Obama doesn't cave.

Oh come on, when has Obama ever caved before?
posted by entropicamericana at 9:37 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

living fist-to-mouth as a child soldier for the taliban in the cavy-caves of afghanistan, obama learned all he needed to know about caving.
posted by kaibutsu at 9:39 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Congressional leaders have been summoned. I so hope Obama doesn't cave.

@stevebruskCNN: White House official tells Brianna Keilar the president's message will be pass a clean funding bill and debt ceiling.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:50 AM on October 2, 2013

NSA says shutdown threatening national security.

...more than 70% of civilian employees of U.S. intelligence agencies have been furloughed under federal guidelines.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:51 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

And you guys said no good would come from the government shutdown.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:52 AM on October 2, 2013 [15 favorites]

...more than 70% of civilian employees of U.S. intelligence agencies have been furloughed under federal guidelines.

I have the urge to play Cee-Lo's "Fuck You" into the phone or something.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:54 AM on October 2, 2013 [6 favorites]

Some in GOP Not Heeding Old Big Business Allies

You know how I know that business no longer thinks the GOP is cool? Rob Schneider just announced as a businessman, he's in favor of the Republican Party. It's like when you realized it was just you and Kevin Smith who were still wearing Jorts: big biz is taking some serious stock in where their life choices have lead them.

That, and record donations to Democratic Party candidates in the past couple of days.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:54 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Movie Announcer: Rob Schneider is a washed-up comedian, with not much going for him. What he doesn't know is, he's about to become... a businessman!
Rob Schneider: I'm a businessman!
Movie Announcer: The business plan is hi-jinks! Rob Schneider is, A Businessman! Rated PG-13.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:59 AM on October 2, 2013 [14 favorites]

....The same can be said for the Immigration reform of how the Senate passed a version, but yet does not contain anything from the House.

Are you actually trying to defend the conduct of the US House? It has wasted it's time holding close to 50 separate votes trying to defund a law that it knows even if it passed the Senate as well would get vetoed. So, rather then trying to create jobs (remember that mantra?), it does this shit. The House who spent a YEAR refusing to meet in conference with the Senate to work on budgetary items (a year!) is now supposedly working in good faith? fuck that shit. "Obamacare" has a lot wrong with it, but it is better then nothing and was a REPUBLICAN IDEA to start with back in the Clinton years.

So strap that goalpost to your back and find a different parking lot to set it down because as much as that cowardly drunkard Boehner whines it is squarely on his shoulders as he clutches to his speakership
posted by edgeways at 9:59 AM on October 2, 2013 [19 favorites]

‘Vote Republican or I’ll never make another movie again’ threatens Rob Schneider

Can I retroactively get credit for having voted Democrat all this time for its own sake? Like, will he retract "Deuce Bigelow"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:01 AM on October 2, 2013 [6 favorites]

Congressional leaders have been summoned. I so hope Obama doesn't cave.

I think Obama should just remain quiet and let the sane Senate Republicans do the talking.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:02 AM on October 2, 2013

My friend’s flying to AZ today with her daughter. When she told me “the Grand Canyon is closed,” that phrase didn’t even compute at first.

The TP congress-guy from the gerrymandered district I live in (Kerry Bentevolio) sent an email targeted at the older (white) conservatives, assuring them they’ll still have their Soc. Sec. and Medicare benefits.

WHAT?! They participate in those evil Dem social programs, FDRcare and LBJcare?
posted by NorthernLite at 10:03 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

"... Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., emphasized that point. "I'm from a district that pretty much ignores Washington," he said. "If you say government is going to shut down, they say, 'OK, which part can we shut down?'"
—"Some in GOP Not Heeding Old Big Business Allies"

Ok, first your salary, then your constituents' benefits, then any agricultural subsidies or benefits your largely rural district receives. Give it a chance, Tim. We can work something out.

Huelskamp, btw, was stripped of his position on the Budget and Agriculture Committees last year and described, by a member of the Steering Committee in an interview with Politico, as [one of] “the most egregious assholes” in the House Republican Conference.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:04 AM on October 2, 2013 [9 favorites]

If you haven't seen Rachel Maddow's report on the deep roots of and giddy reaction to the shutdown by republicans, it's worth seeing, imo.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:06 AM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

More showboating at the WW2 Memorial by Bachmann. And it led to this, which I think is pretty funny: At one point, a veteran yelled "Sarah!" as Bachmann approached him.
posted by inigo2 at 10:06 AM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Huelskamp, btw, was stripped of his position on the Budget and Agriculture Committees last year and described, by a member of the Steering Committee in an interview with Politico, as [one of] “the most egregious assholes” in the House Republican Conference.

Also apparently my district's representative. oh booooy.
posted by hellojed at 10:09 AM on October 2, 2013

If you could shut down agricultural subsidies across the board all this would be done with by teatime. Sadly...
posted by Artw at 10:09 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

“I’ve been in the intelligence business for about 50 years. I’d never seen anything like this,” said Mr. Clapper.

Can anybody explain this utterance to me in light of the fact that this is not the first government shutdown in the last 50 years?
posted by nTeleKy at 10:14 AM on October 2, 2013

If you could shut down agricultural subsidies across the board all this would be done with by teatime. Sadly...

And the flight controllers and Soc Sec benefits. Shut it all down. Shut down should mean just that, none of this essential services keep running, it should all just stop cold and let them explain why grandma has to eat catfood and why iphones are piling up on the docks.
posted by T.D. Strange at 10:16 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

With no customs, maybe now I can import all the great cars that can't be sold in the US thanks to chicken taxes and DMV regulations.
posted by hellojed at 10:18 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Can anybody explain this utterance to me in light of the fact that this is not the first government shutdown in the last 50 years?

I'd guess it's due to the fact that the intelligence business has been expanded and outsourced to levels never imagined in the past 50 years.
posted by cmfletcher at 10:18 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I was wondering what happens to furloughed federal employees' health coverage - since presumably both the employer and employee contributions to their premiums aren't getting paid.

According to the benefits section of this furlough manual from the Office of Personnel Management it sounds like their coverage continues but the accumulated premium amounts will be withdrawn from their pay whenever they start getting paid again. And they can't opt out, because there is no one to process their withdrawal from the plan.
posted by yarrow at 10:21 AM on October 2, 2013

John Boehner resembles the William Macy character in Fargo
posted by madamjujujive at 10:21 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

Can anybody explain this utterance to me in light of the fact that this is not the first government shutdown in the last 50 years?

Although this is the first shutdown I have been through while working for the government, I get the impression that this time more emphasis has been placed on making absolutely sure that if parts of an agency are supposed to shutdown, they really and truly are shutdown.
posted by Quonab at 10:24 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

"Proud" to say that I'm represented by this Tea Party GENIUS, ready and willing to impeach the president asap: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/bill-flores-obama-impeachment_n_3881118.html
posted by mattbucher at 10:27 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

"Proud" to say that I'm represented by this Tea Party GENIUS, ready and willing to impeach the president asap: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/06/bill-flores-obama-impeachment_n_3881118.html

Call him. Tell him you're opposed to shutting down the government to defund the ACA.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:28 AM on October 2, 2013 [12 favorites]

The TP congress-guy from the gerrymandered district I live in (Kerry Bentevolio) sent an email targeted at the older (white) conservatives, assuring them they’ll still have their Soc. Sec. and Medicare benefits.

Call that congress-guy.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:29 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

Can anybody explain this utterance to me in light of the fact that this is not the first government shutdown in the last 50 years?

There is, on the ground at my mostly-civilian DoD agency, a genuine sense that this is not going to go away tomorrow. When you add in the sequester furloughs, the looming debt ceiling fight and the sheerly nihilistic viewpoint being espoused by the Tea Partiers (Gingrich's shutdown was bad enough, but at least he had an idea for the federal government that allowed for the possibility of compromise -- "No Obamacare, period" is not a thing where the parties can meet in the middle), this is definitely worse than 1996.
posted by Etrigan at 10:30 AM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

I thought Bill Flores sounded familiar, I voted against him in the midterm when I still went to college in Waco. I'm not there any more but I still have Ted Cruz to be ashamed of.
posted by DynamiteToast at 10:34 AM on October 2, 2013

Rob Schneider just announced as a businessman, he's in favor of the Republican Party.

What is it about the LEAST-talented former members of the SNL cast becoming 'Right Wing Wackos'? Lorne Michaels should be doing a better vetting process...
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:40 AM on October 2, 2013 [6 favorites]

Seems Reid is rejecting anything the House submits.

Yes, having passed a budget and asked repeatedly for conference on it, it is really surprising that Reid isn't willing to negotiate on whether or not to continue funding the government for a short period. After all, the House has submitted proposals to de-implement a law they have no hope of repealing and which SCOTUS has upheld, repeal a tax they have no hope of repealing, and even to fund select portions of the government in tiny little increments.

I fail to see what it is that Reid is supposed to be negotiating. The ACA? Only funding the R's favorite government agencies?

If the Rs want to negotiate a budget, they need only a) pass the clean funding resolution the Senate has repeatedly approved; b) agree to raise the debt ceiling so the U.S. doesn't default on its debts and c) say yes to a budget conference committee.

This is why the disapproval rating for the R's tactics is at 72%. This is why in the past two days so many R House members have indicated they are now willing to vote for the clean funding resolution. We can all see how utterly disingenuous this approach is.
posted by bearwife at 10:40 AM on October 2, 2013 [27 favorites]

‘Vote Republican or I’ll never make another movie again’ threatens Rob Schneider

This is the strongest endorsement of the Democratic Party I have ever witnessed. I'd vote/donate/actively campaign for a yellow dog to stop 'The Hot Chick 2'.
posted by cmfletcher at 10:53 AM on October 2, 2013 [12 favorites]

So...the Astronomy Picture of the Day site is down (operated out of the Goddard Space Flight Center, site also down)...alright, now I'm MAD. (the veteran benefits, 800,000 govt workers, museum and public parks, and children both starving and with cancer might have contributed to my mood as well)

posted by sexyrobot at 11:16 on October 2 [+] [!]

FWIW, How to follow APOD during a US government shutdown, and a list of mirror sites. Apparently unpaid volunteers do a lot of the work on APOD.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:54 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Speaking of Senator Reid and his refusal to negotiate, here's what the Huff Post's live blog reported less than an hour ago:

Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) wrote to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and proposed a compromise -- passing a measure funding the government and subsequently appointing budget conferees to deal with the nation's fiscal issues.
posted by bearwife at 10:59 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

So far I've sustained my "call my Representative once a day until this is fixed right" record. The staffer on the other end of the phone sounded a little more war-weary than they did at the end of last week. I hope that's a good sign.
posted by introp at 11:02 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Lawyers Guns and Money has given us OBAMACARE! the text game.

You are standing in an open field in west of a white apartment complex, with a boarded front door. There is a small mailbox here.

> e

The door is locked. There is evidently no key.

> kick door

I don’t understand that.

> chicago jackboot thug kick

I don’t understand that.

> black panther power

You don’t understand that.

> power of greyskull

Fine. By the Power of Greyskull you open the door. You are in the kitchen of the white townhouse. A table seems to have been used recently for the preparation of food. A passage leads to the west, and a dark staircase can be seen leading upward. To the east is a small window which is open. On the table is a computer open to Healthcare.gov.

> what is dot gov

It just gets better from there.
posted by emjaybee at 11:04 AM on October 2, 2013 [14 favorites]

143-year-old law has Washington treading gingerly during shutdown

One White House official said he has advised his employees not to check their email or cellphones. Under the act, even volunteering for government service is expressly prohibited.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:04 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

One White House official said he has advised his employees not to check their email or cellphones.

One? That's the word from most everyone I've talked to.
posted by inigo2 at 11:06 AM on October 2, 2013

I have a decent amount of DC people on my Facebook; it's amazing how quickly any comment any of them makes about this situation is used as a pretext for someone to go off on a talking point copy and paste rant about how the House is representing the will of the people who never asked for government healthcare or whatever. It's different people in each conversation but it's like I'm reading transcripts from a call center, the phrases and arguments are so similar.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:10 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yeah, the TP folks are out in force on the web with the prescribed GOP talking points (e.g., delay individual mandate for a year, repeal medical device tax yada yada). I wouldn't mind it at all if it weren't so boring and predictable.
posted by RedShrek at 11:19 AM on October 2, 2013

We have arrived. 17 House Republicans now publicly ready to support a clean CR to fund the government.

As of Wednesday afternoon, the number of those Republicans hit 17 -- the magic number. If all 200 Democrats stick together and team up with those Republicans, they have the votes to pass a clean funding bill. Of course, House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) would have to be willing to put that bill on the floor in the first place. But if he did, the votes appear to be there for passage, at which point the bill would sail through the Senate and be signed by President Barack Obama, ending the shutdown.

posted by zombieflanders at 11:20 AM on October 2, 2013 [16 favorites]

I'm not sure I can handle so much condescension from a country with an electoral system that keeps putting a completely unlikeable right-winger from Alberta in charge.

You're honestly giving Canada shit for letting unlikeable Albertans run amok?

Get that lumber out of your eye, America.
posted by Sauce Trough at 11:21 AM on October 2, 2013

Why Dems must not give an inch to GOP debt limit blackmail
posted by Artw at 11:25 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Economist weighs in from across the pond.

In sum, unless GOP party discipline somehow cracks, America is probably in for a pretty lousy political year.
posted by RedOrGreen at 11:27 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

We have arrived. 17 House Republicans now publicly ready to support a clean CR to fund the government.

No. The Hastert Rule means the magic number is 117 - a majority of the GOP's 232 majority, which is the condition under which Boehner has repeatedly said is required for his bringing a bill to a vote. So we're around a hundred lunatics and cravens shy of arriving.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:31 AM on October 2, 2013

Yeah, I think the House GOP plan is to shutdown the government, decline to increase the debt limit, and impeach the President - pronouncing him a "dictator."
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:34 AM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

The "Hastert Rule" isn't an official rule. It doesn't require something akin to a cloture vote to waive it. Boehner just has to decide to bring the bill to a vote anyway.
posted by wierdo at 11:35 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Where is Michael Corleone when we need him?
posted by Pudhoho at 11:36 AM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

The "Hastert Rule" isn't an official rule. It doesn't require something akin to a cloture vote to waive it. Boehner just has to decide to bring the bill to a vote anyway.

And the Dems need to shout this louder and louder from the rooftops: there are enough Republicans ready to end this bullshit, but they're not being allowed to.
posted by inigo2 at 11:37 AM on October 2, 2013 [10 favorites]

Even if Boehner abides by the Hastert Rule (not a real rule), if those 17 Republicans really wanted to end this they could vote on a "discharge petition," which would force Boehner to allow the vote. I don't think they will, yet. But the power is in their hands.
posted by Roommate at 11:39 AM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

Reince Preibus showing up at WWII Memorial to announce the RNC will keep pay for it to be open for 30 days.

I can't believe people fall for these theatrics.
posted by DynamiteToast at 11:39 AM on October 2, 2013 [9 favorites]

BungaDunga: "
Even if he does, someone will sue and then nobody will know whether the bonds issued under this rationale are "real" or not until it's adjudicated, and we're back to the same ol' clusterfuck we started with.[quote]

I really can't think of anything that would fuck the US economy harder and faster than a court decision that we would never have to pay on certain bonds we issued; not just while we're wanking off about the budget, but literally making them not worth the paper they're printed on.

(Are they actually ever printed, if no one requests them?)
posted by IAmBroom at 11:39 AM on October 2, 2013

Yeah, I think the House GOP plan is to shutdown the government, decline to increase the debt limit, and impeach the President - pronouncing him a "dictator."

Yeah. I think this is the plan, too - red meat for the core constituency, and depend on gerrymandering and voter suppression to help them ride out the upcoming economic armageddon that will sweep their ideological enemies from power in the next two voting cycles. It's insane, but hey, it's the Tea Party. We're all mad here... change seats! Change seats!

Boehner just has to decide to bring the bill to a vote anyway.

Why on earth would he do that if it costs him his job?
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:40 AM on October 2, 2013

A discharge petition is pretty slow unless something is stuck in committee already. Is there a clean CR sitting in committee now?
posted by exogenous at 11:53 AM on October 2, 2013

DynamiteToast: "Reince Preibus showing up at WWII Memorial to announce the RNC will keep pay for it to be open for 30 days.

I can't believe people fall for these theatrics."

Fuck that guy.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 11:54 AM on October 2, 2013 [6 favorites]

Reince Preibus showing up at WWII Memorial to announce the RNC will keep pay for it to be open for 30 days.

I just wish a reporter there would ask if the RNC would also pay for experimental cancer treatments for children.
posted by inigo2 at 11:55 AM on October 2, 2013 [13 favorites]

A discharge petition is pretty slow unless something is stuck in committee already. Is there a clean CR sitting in committee now?

I'm not sure - when did the Senate first vote on their version? Is that when the clock starts? Even so, it looks like the best case for a discharge petition still wouldn't allow the vote until the 14th. I'd really like to see this resolved by then. Although that looks increasingly unlikely, with more and more focus on the debt ceiling deadline.
posted by Roommate at 11:57 AM on October 2, 2013

The GOP are talking about funding NIH experimental care for Kids with cancer
posted by RedShrek at 11:58 AM on October 2, 2013

and fund the VA for 30 days so they can treat the health problems of these very same veterans in your photo ops.
posted by cmfletcher at 11:58 AM on October 2, 2013

Why on earth would he do that if it costs him his job?

If he makes a deal with Pelosi to whip all Democrats plus those 17 Republicans to support him in the event of there is a revolt, he won't have to worry. If the rumors are true and he's not going to run in 2014, that may sound like a very good deal to him. Sure, he'll be a pariah for the Teahadists, but they have the attention span of fleas with ADHD, and it would be better than being immortalized by the history books as the man who killed the global economy.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:59 AM on October 2, 2013

Just after WaPo started keeping a running tally of House Republicans who have publicly stated their support for a clean CR, the Club for Growth was quick to rather issue a reminder that those newly-appointed RINOs will be primaried from the right if they actually sign on: Club for Growth alludes to consequences. Creepy, eh?

Yes, the Republican Party has gerrymandered themselves into maintaining House majority rule for at least the next 7 years, but there is no shortage of effectively infinitely-moneyed organizations like CFG waiting to further radicalize as many elected positions as possible. Since so many theoretically contested seats have been deftly transacted into inarguable GOP territory, they are now safe to divert their billions of dollars from general elections into primaries, with the ultimate goal of clearing the GOP of any/all traitors who would dare have a hand in any legislation that does not further the wholesale elimination of the federal government. After that's all done, and our representative democracy has been successfully drowned in the bathtub, I guess they will finally be able to pull up stakes and move to Galt's Gulch. It's paradise.

For those of you who have yet to curse out or big up your Congresscritters, please see below.

House: Find Your Representative
Senate: Find Your Senators
the whole kit & kaboodle: Contact Your Government
posted by divined by radio at 12:04 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

The GOP are talking about funding NIH experimental care for Kids with cancer

At this rate, the entire government will be up and running slightly before the heat death of the universe.
posted by Etrigan at 12:04 PM on October 2, 2013

They likely have a whole bunch more than 17 Republicans who would vote for a clean bill. They might even have a majority of Republicans. The Hastert 'rule' stuff could very well not even apply, in reality, even ignoring the fact that it's not a real rule.

I don't understand that link. If there are really, like, 150 or so Republicans willing to vote for a clean CR, why doesn't Boehner just go to them and say "look, we all want this thing but I'm afraid the wackos will call a Speaker election. If I allow this to go to the floor, can you guarantee that you'll support it and then support me when Tea Party tries to unseat me?" Then he can go to Pelosi and strike a deal where, say, the Democrats agree to support him as Speaker for the rest of this Congress - which shouldn't be too hard, seeing as the Dems are in the minority and aren't going to have one of their own elected, anyway - in exchange for a clean CR (and maybe a clean debt ceiling increase!?) coming to the floor? Then the clean CR passes, the wackos go back to their nests, and Boehner remains the Speaker's chair - problem solved!

Either there really aren't as many Republicans willing to support a clean CR as the link implies, or Boehner is even more of spineless weakling than I ever could have possibly imagined. I don't know which it is, but damn, this shit makes no sense.
posted by breakin' the law at 12:07 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Shutdown Spectacle: 'America Is Already Politically Bankrupt'. As the United States government shutdown enters its second day, Washington is the target of both ridicule and concern overseas. German commentators describe the situation as a "specifically American problem" with far-reaching consequences.
posted by homunculus at 12:09 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Ha!
via Twitter: Today on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D: 45 minutes of Agent Coulson watching Cheers on Netflix because he got furloughed.
posted by inigo2 at 12:13 PM on October 2, 2013 [20 favorites]

If there are really, like, 150 or so Republicans willing to vote for a clean CR, why doesn't Boehner just go to them and say "look, we all want this thing but I'm afraid the wackos will call a Speaker election. If I allow this to go to the floor, can you guarantee that you'll support it and then support me when Tea Party tries to unseat me?" Then he can go to Pelosi and strike a deal where, say, the Democrats agree to support him as Speaker for the rest of this Congress - which shouldn't be too hard, seeing as the Dems are in the minority and aren't going to have one of their own elected, anyway - in exchange for a clean CR (and maybe a clean debt ceiling increase!?) coming to the floor?

Two major reasons:
1 -- Any challenge to the Speakership is a long-term loss, and this particular plan would be trivially easy for the Club for Growth types to spin as "Boehner is so craven that he cut a backroom deal with Nancy Pelosi to keep his fancy office." Even if Boehner is retiring, he probably doesn't want to nuke Eric Cantor's chances at the top spot; nor does he particularly want the Tea Party to exert even more control over the next Congress.
2 -- He has to trust the Democrats with his political life. Is he willing to do that? (I am not saying the Democrats are untrustworthy, just that they may be untrustworthy in his opinion.)
posted by Etrigan at 12:13 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Club for Growth hasn't really looked at that list of 17 have they. Almost all of those guys are in the DC and Philly suburbs. I can't speak for Va politics but Runyan, LoBiondo, Gerlach, Dent, Lance, and Meehan are all in districts within an hour of philly and in some cases NYC as well. Those aren't gerrymandered safe republican districts and attacks from the right will put those seats on the other side of the aisle in the general election if they get their kinda guy in the race.

So yeah, I dare you to go after them from the right.
posted by cmfletcher at 12:14 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Reince Preibus showing up at WWII Memorial to announce the RNC will keep pay for it to be open for 30 days.

BREAKING: Reince Preibus has announced that in the event that the Republican party intentionally causes a financial crisis by not voting to increase the debt ceiling, the RNC promises to fulfill the US Treasury's debt obligations by presenting a few elderly veterans with giant novelty checks.
posted by burnmp3s at 12:20 PM on October 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

Oddly, the people who would benefit the most from campaign finance reform are non-Tea Party Republicans now. That'd be a hell of a rider for a CR.

Why is that? Shouldn't moderates be getting a ton of money from Wall Street to not shut down the government and crash the economy?

Those aren't gerrymandered safe republican districts and attacks from the right will put those seats on the other side of the aisle in the general election if they get their kinda guy in the race.

Could they just switch parties or become independents?
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:21 PM on October 2, 2013

What y'all need is a Westminster system, where failure to pass a budget immediately triggers an election.

Even that has its own shortfalls: I and many other mefites live in a country where the PM has shut down Parliament three times in the last five years: once to avoid the very non-confidence vote you cite, once to avoid questioning on the treatment of Afghan detainees and most recently because he has realized it is is a good way to avoid questioning by the opposition in general. As well, this new practice is trickling down to the provinces and the largest province prorogued its legislature last year to avoid difficult questions as well.
posted by ricochet biscuit at 12:22 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Justinian: "Holy shit, charging your political opponents with treason would be the end of the country. It's the worst idea I've ever heard short of executing them with a gunshot to the head."

Only slightly less stupid is impeaching a leader for some trifling technicality of legal misconduct, simply because he's from the other party.

Bad precedent and all.
posted by IAmBroom at 12:25 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Why is that? Shouldn't moderates be getting a ton of money from Wall Street to not shut down the government and crash the economy?

Because of the independent 3rd party funding mechanism(s) unleashed in the last few years, they don't need Wall Street money anymore. Jim DeMint, CFG, and other orgs more than cover the bills. And they hardly need any money! These people are now essentially unaccountable to anybody but the people in their carved out ethnic enclaves, who will vote for them out of simple tribalism.

This happened. So. Fucking. Fast.

This was theoretical end game stuff to these actions meant to become issues decades from when they were enacted. This is Frankenstein's monster for Rove and the other establishment GOPers who rode the tiger of unchecked rural stupidity to victory in 2000.

We're all fucked because of it. Thanks.
posted by lattiboy at 12:27 PM on October 2, 2013 [9 favorites]

Shouldn't moderates be getting a ton of money from Wall Street to not shut down the government and crash the economy?

I'd heard that Obama's "safe harbor for bad banks" policies had done much to move much of Wall Street away from the GOP (only to have them threaten to go back every time his administration threatens some solid reform or regulation).

"Holy shit, charging your political opponents with treason would be the end of the country. It's the worst idea I've ever heard short of executing them with a gunshot to the head."
Only slightly less stupid is impeaching a leader for some trifling technicality of legal misconduct, simply because he's from the other party.
Bad precedent and all.

That precedent has already been set and the Democrats' unwillingness to use it on GWBush shows the major difference between the two parties.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:28 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Why is that? Shouldn't moderates be getting a ton of money from Wall Street to not shut down the government and crash the economy?

Maybe. In the next elections. But it's not a guarantee. And they already are getting that money, but it's up against the Tea Party backers who have deep enough pockets to win, in districts that are already tilted so far right that the Tea Party candidate has the upper hand.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:29 PM on October 2, 2013

1 -- Any challenge to the Speakership is a long-term loss, and this particular plan would be trivially easy for the Club for Growth types to spin as "Boehner is so craven that he cut a backroom deal with Nancy Pelosi to keep his fancy office." Even if Boehner is retiring, he probably doesn't want to nuke Eric Cantor's chances at the top spot; nor does he particularly want the Tea Party to exert even more control over the next Congress.
2 -- He has to trust the Democrats with his political life. Is he willing to do that? (I am not saying the Democrats are untrustworthy, just that they may be untrustworthy in his opinion.)

1. This is a legit issue, but the very same deal can be struck in the next Congress. Boehner can still say to Pelosi: "If we win in 2014, I want your guys to vote for me [or whoever the non-crazy candidate is, they can even negotiate about this!] as Speaker."
1a. He would certainly face those ads. But if he's retiring, who cares? And if he's not - or if they go after Cantor, or whoever else in the leadership - there's considerable political and institutional muscle behind the idea of passing a clean CR and clean debt ceiling increase. I mean, the Chamber of Commerce, who supports these things, can't blanket the home districts of the leadership with ads talking about how great they are? This is a problem, but I don't see why it's insurmountable. And that's what a leader is supposed to do: fucking lead.

2. I'm not privy to John Boehner's thoughts, of course, but I have to imagine that he doesn't view the Democrats as particularly less trustworthy than the Tea Party he so fears. He doesn't have to really trust the Democrats, he just has to think they are more trustworthy than the Tea Party.

Bottom line: Either Boehner doesn't have the votes, or he literally spends all day walking around Capitol Hill shitting his pants in fear of Michelle Bachman and Ted Cruz. I don't know why he'd see that as preferable to dealing with Pelosi; but I'd guess he does, so here we are.
posted by breakin' the law at 12:34 PM on October 2, 2013

in districts that are already tilted so far right that the Tea Party candidate has the upper hand.

I don't think we need moderates to win in far right districts, just in moderately right districts.
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:34 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Point/Counterpoint: The Republican Party Cannot Stand By And Let Obamacare Destroy This Country vs. Help Me by John Boehner
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 12:36 PM on October 2, 2013 [20 favorites]

tonycpsu: "Flunkie: "Sounds like Republican Congressional staffers should form a union."

I want to make sweet, sweet love to this comment and cook it breakfast in the morning."

Metafilter comment #5218171, I'm speaking directly to you.

I know he sounds all sexy and shit, but... don't.

Just don't.

He
never
calls.

I am so over him.

--Metafilter comment #5219402
posted by IAmBroom at 12:36 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

45 minutes of Agent Coulson watching Cheers on Netflix because he got furloughed.

See, if SHIELD was outside the government and beyond the police, like Torchwood, they wouldn't have this problem.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:40 PM on October 2, 2013

See, if SHIELD was outside the government and beyond the police, like Torchwood, they wouldn't have this problem.

grumblegrumbletheywereuntilitwasweirdlyretconnedgrumble
posted by jason_steakums at 12:41 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

So there are 30 to 40 true hardliners. But there's another group of maybe 50 to 60 members who are very much pressured by the hardliners. So he may have the votes on paper. But he'd create chaos. It'd be like fiscal cliff level chaos. You could make the argument that if he brought a clean CR to the floor he might have 100-plus with him on the idea. But could they stand firm when pressured by the 30 or 40 hardliners and the outside groups?

[...]

When you get the members off the talking points you come to a simple conclusion: They don't face consequences for taking these hardline positions. When you hear members talk candidly about their biggest victory, it wasn't winning the House in 2010. It was winning the state legislatures in 2010 because they were able to redraw their districts so they had many more conservative voters. The members get heat from the press but they don't get heat from back home.

So while the Republican Party is not remotely in danger of losing its majority position in the House, individual Republican incumbents are certainly in danger of losing their seats to Tea Party fanatics in the 2014 primaries if they are perceived by the powers that be as having betrayed any sacred Galtian ideals. And there are no perceptible real-world consequences for being "too" radical because they operate in an echo chamber. As mentioned above, much of this comes down to "dark money" funneled from Super PACs and 501(c)(4) groups like Americans for Prosperity and Club for Growth.

Our next giant leap toward dismantling democracy as we know it will come on October 8 with McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which the overall limit of individual political contributions is all but certain to be struck down by ~~activist judges~~ brave and principled originalists. More (spirit-crushing) information: What The Media Need To Know About "The Next Citizens United."
posted by divined by radio at 12:47 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Can you just imagine how the Right Wing Wackos would've reacted to United Nations-affiliated U.N.I.T. in the old Who?
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:47 PM on October 2, 2013

Pentagon awards 94 contracts worth $5Bn the day before shutdown.
posted by boo_radley at 12:48 PM on October 2, 2013

Getting rid of earmarks seemed like a really good idea at the time. But it seems to mean in this case that Boehner can't grease the wheels here by simply promising goodies to the members who would be in danger of getting primaried.
posted by miyabo at 12:56 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

I don't think you could dig your way out of this situation with them, but the negotiations may have been able to get hammered through before we got to this point with them. People need to be able to compromise without compromising their ideals, and the earmarks gave them a justification to take a deal. (And yeah, are also just a good way to specifically fund things that need specific funding)
posted by Drinky Die at 1:10 PM on October 2, 2013

Paul Ryan said "That's what we think we need. A forcing action to bring two parties together," Ryan said. "We don't want to close the government down. We want it open. But we want fairness..."

Fairness? Fairness is voting on a fucking bill, fairness is having 2 fucking houses of congress vote, fairness is having the president sign, fairness is then having your state attys general bring a suit, fairness is having a Conservative supreme court rule IT IS CONSTITUTIONAL.

WHAT THE FUCK DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND ABOUT "FAIRNESS".

Fuck that guy.

And fuck Bill Flores who thinks somehow that it's not "constitutional" after going through every single fucking constitutional hoop to make a law a law in the first fucking place before it is ever implemented and you're still trying to call it a bill and act as if somehow it's not a law vetted and approved by every single fucking branch of government?

FUCK YOU ASSHOLES.

I honestly think that the only way to deal with this is make the old people suffer their idiocy, and I hate that, because, 1) I know it's not only old people, but there are plenty of poor people in general who vote Republican against their own self interest. 2) I really do not like people suffering... 3) Innocents will be caught in the middle even though they do support rational political courses...

But if it's short term suffering to teach some fucking idiots some lessons (and maybe get some sanity back) vs continuing down this stupid goddamned demagoguery we have running our joint, sometimes short term pain is required to stop long term bleed-out.

So as much as I don't want people on support to suffer (and thankfully there's a lot of social support still in effect, thankfully for my moral sense, I mean), my quasi-rational (also partially vengeful sense) self says burn them to the ground and let them suffer the consequences brought on by those they elected.
posted by symbioid at 1:13 PM on October 2, 2013 [11 favorites]

I think the whole notion that earmarks are automatically bad is a bit of a myth. There certainly are bad earmarks, but earmarks have also funded a lot of really good, important stuff. It just kinda became an easy target rather than reforming the system it became kill the system.

Well, that's really the underlying basic problem, no? The easy-to-remember-bumper-sticker-length-black-and-white-soundbyte-philosophy-of-government. Taxes are theft. Social programs are evil. Etc.

It's great if you have the attention span of a gnat, but it sucks if you actually have to run a government.

It's cynical, unproductive, and nothing new. Oscar Wilde said, "A cynic is a man who knows the cost of everything, and the value of nothing."
posted by Benny Andajetz at 1:14 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Pentagon awards 94 contracts worth $5Bn the day before shutdown.

That's just a ridiculous presentation of the DoD contracting process. You could just as easily say "The Pentagon spent as much time as possible evaluating contracts, waiting until the last day of the fiscal year to award them to make sure that everything was in order."

But really, government contracts are huge beasts that take a ton of time and work to execute. Paperwork got filed right on the deadline because that's the way paperwork often works, whether you are in the government or not. Calling paperwork turned in on the day it is due a "spree" of paperwork is silly.
posted by Quonab at 1:14 PM on October 2, 2013 [16 favorites]

divined by radio: "Our next giant leap toward dismantling democracy as we know it will come on October 8 with McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, in which the overall limit of individual political contributions is all but certain to be struck down by ~~activist judges~~ brave and principled originalists. More (spirit-crushing) information: What The Media Need To Know About "The Next Citizens United.""

Is this necessarily a bad thing? If we are facing a large segment of the voting public who donate a shit ton of small amounts of money and large corporate donors are prevented from pushing a lot of money, this also means that sensible billionaires (few though they may be) are prevented from shoving massive quantities of coke-tubes at this problem, which means, they are being outspent by masses of idiots who give small amounts, and "YAY DEMOCRACY" but maybe sometimes, we need fewer, hopefully wiser people, making these decisions and in this case, maybe get some sanity back into the situation by people like Gates and Buffet dropping a cool Billion or two into the shark infested waters of the Republican party just in time for the primaries.
posted by symbioid at 1:17 PM on October 2, 2013

From the WaPo liveblog: Reid clashes with CNN's Dana Bash over cancer trials

This kind of thing, what Bash is doing there, is real shitty journalism. The GOP are trying to fund the highly visible, widely loved parts of the government AND NOTHING ELSE. It's the same as the slimdown narrative. Fund the parts that the average voter gives half a shit about so the nation stops caring and the rest of the government stays shut down. The GOP gets an easy win, the media moves on, 800,000+ federal employees and contractors go on unemployment. That'll make Obama's administration look even worse. Bonus for them.

I'm surprised they haven't put forth a pandacam-specific bill.
posted by troika at 1:18 PM on October 2, 2013 [14 favorites]

"The federal government may have shut down, but The Capitol Steps have arrived, direct from Washington and will perform tonight at the Harris Center at 7:30 PM. Who better to make sense of these current events than the troupe of former congressional staffers who have injected humor into politics for over 30 years. "

This is (inadvertently) the funniest thing Capitol Steps have ever been involved in ever.
posted by Senor Cardgage at 1:21 PM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

This Is What They Want
posted by homunculus at 1:21 PM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

That's just a ridiculous presentation of the DoD contracting process. You could just as easily say "The Pentagon spent as much time as possible evaluating contracts, waiting until the last day of the fiscal year to award them to make sure that everything was in order."

But really, government contracts are huge beasts that take a ton of time and work to execute. Paperwork got filed right on the deadline because that's the way paperwork often works, whether you are in the government or not. Calling paperwork turned in on the day it is due a "spree" of paperwork is silly.

Yeah, the DoD was just doing what every other department had to do before the end of the fiscal year with uncertainty looming. One of our local TV stations had the FCC close the sale with new owners at the last second on Monday, too. The alternative would be to let all these deals that were 99.9% closed, with all the money and labor and hurdle jumping it took to get them there just sit in limbo so the private sector entities involved have to wait it out on emergency funds or get their own furloughs on.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:24 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I don't think Esquire is right, homunculus. This tactic is making the President and big business into allies.
posted by bearwife at 1:27 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Say what you want about Republicans and Conservative, stupid is a label that can't be applied to them. I admire their discipline and laser focus. In this game, only the committed win and by more than a mile, Republicans and Conservatives are more committed and have a well thought out strategy. They will win in the end anyway. Too bad for the rest of us.

This has to be satire, right? They haven't had a reasonable strategy this whole time, they're just hoping the democrats fold. Not to mention that they've had 5-6 Republicans a day going on record saying at this point they'd take a clean CR.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:30 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

The GOP are talking about funding NIH experimental care for Kids with cancer
posted by RedShrek at 2:58 PM

and fund the VA for 30 days so they can treat the health problems of these very same veterans in your photo ops.
posted by cmfletcher at 2:58 PM

I wonder if the Dems should just kind of keep tricking the GOP into funding more and more things and see how long it takes them to realize "waaaaaait....."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 1:30 PM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

I'm with odinsdream, they should lose their seats. All of them.

You didn't do your job, and in fact you've proven you are incapable of doing so.
posted by inertia at 1:33 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

RedShrek: "Say what you want about Republicans and Conservative, stupid is a label that can't be applied to them. I admire their discipline and laser focus. In this game, only the committed win and by more than a mile, Republicans and Conservatives are more committed and have a well thought out strategy. They will win in the end anyway. Too bad for the rest of us."

The part you're missing is the part where it's "Republicans" and "Conservatives" that are fighting against each other, not against the Democrats. Remember Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment of how thou shalt not speak ill of any Republican? Yeah, that shit's out the window. Tea Partiers consider themselves conservatives first and Republicans second. It's all about their next primary fight -- every man for himself.

DynamiteToast: "they're just hoping the democrats fold."

That's historically been a winning strategy, but in this case they have a shitty hand, and the Democrats know it.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:34 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

I'm surprised they haven't put forth a pandacam-specific bill.

Eric Cantor tweeted earlier a list of bills that the President threatened to veto which fund the various visible parts of the government.

- Open Our National Parks and Museums Act
- Provide Local Funding for DC Act
- Honoring Our Promise to America's Veterans Act
- Researching for Lifesaving Cures Act
- Pay our Guard and Reserve Act

I believe they should collectively be known as 'The Optics are Really Bad for the GOP Acts'
posted by TwoWordReview at 1:34 PM on October 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2013/10/crazy-like-foxes-even-paul-ryans.html
posted by RedShrek at 1:36 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Say what you want about Republicans and Conservative, stupid is a label that can't be applied to them.

I dunno, threatening to tank the economy for short-term gain and a tarnished reputation while completely backburnering all the effort they should have been putting in to appealing to changing demographics for mid- to long-term stability* is pretty fucking stupid.

* seriously, it's like Rubio got drymouth on camera once and they just completely gave up on that. "Whelp, we tried, pack it in and let's just go back to crazy rich white dudes."
posted by jason_steakums at 1:38 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

I'm with odinsdream, they should lose their seats. All of them.

I agree, and I want to know how I can influence this
posted by jacalata at 1:40 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Say what you want about Republicans and Conservative, stupid is a label that can't be applied to them. I admire their discipline and laser focus. In this game, only the committed win and by more than a mile, Republicans and Conservatives are more committed and have a well thought out strategy. They will win in the end anyway. Too bad for the rest of us.

This is one way of saying "if you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'"

Perhaps technically true, but not the way I want my government to be run. Also don't confuse short-term guile (winning this particular fight) for long term wisdom (having something left worth governing).

Also, if the goal is to destroy the government that they're running so they can sell it piece-meal to their friends, then we're talking about groups who are playing totally different games.
posted by codacorolla at 1:42 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Golden Eternity: "NSA says shutdown threatening national security.

...more than 70% of civilian employees of U.S. intelligence agencies have been furloughed under federal guidelines."

WHOOHOO!

OK, my fellow al Qaeda cronies, NOW is the time to act!

Achmed: I haven't called you in a long time, my bad, but the NSA was like bugging my phone. Warrantlessly! I know, right? Anyway, it's a "go" on "Operation Drive a Blue Mercedes Benz Full of LSD Into the Library of Congress" tomorrow. Say, eightish? AM, obv. Oh - and that's 8, US ET! Don't want another screwup like the time you drove that U-Haul full of fertilizer from Miami to Denver, only to arrive after everyone in the Mint had already gone home for the 3-day weekend! Ha! I know, I said I'd never bring it up again, but... really - the look on your face on the NSA vid screens - priceless!

Oh, and those should be down now, too.

Dear Metafilter Moderators: if a budget gets passed, could you please delete this post? KTHXBYE.
posted by IAmBroom at 1:46 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

RedShrek's link above nails it. The Republicans have already won the policy battle and don't even seem to realize it. Or maybe they do realize it, and are just riding the hot hand. Why quit when you're ahead?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:47 PM on October 2, 2013

The GOP establishment worked very carefully to build a box for the Democrats with their gerrymandering and limitless campaign money. They didn't realize that it was a Pandora's Box that the Tea Party would throw wide open.
posted by double block and bleed at 1:48 PM on October 2, 2013

Republicans and Conservatives are more committed and have a well thought out strategy.

Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence!

Paul Ryan said "That's what we think we need. A forcing action to bring two parties together," Ryan said. "We don't want to close the government down. We want it open. But we want fairness..."

The same Paul Ryan who said:

"The reason this debt limit fight is different is, we don't have an election around the corner where we feel we are going to win and fix it ourselves. We are stuck with this government another three years."

They don't call him Lyin' Ryan for nothing.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:49 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Yeah, the DoD was just doing what every other department had to do before the end of the fiscal year with uncertainty looming.

No, that is not what was going on. The government is funded on a yearly basis. The contracts have to be in place before the beginning of the year or the contractors won't get paid for the work done on Oct. 1. The contracts described in the article are mostly for things like fuel and aircraft parts, hand grenades and janitorial services. These are things the DoD pays for in its regular course of business.

It has nothing to do with uncertainty or the government shutdown. These are contracts that have to be renwed year-to-year, or are new contracts replacing ones that had expired and needed to be recompeted. That article just took everyday business of the government and described it breathlessly, knowing that most people have not worked in an environment where the money appropriated for a given year can only be spent on things used in that year.

Sep. 30 was a paperwork deadline. That's why there was a lot of paperwork done that day.
posted by Quonab at 1:52 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates: "RedShrek's link above nails it. The Republicans have already won the policy battle and don't even seem to realize it. Or maybe they do realize it, and are just riding the hot hand. Why quit when you're ahead?"

I disagree. I loves me some Digby, but she jumped the gun on this one, as her update makes clear:

Update: Important to note that while the total numbers nearly match Ryan's budget, the composition of the two budgets is different. Ryan put back the Pentagon funding in full and slashed other discretionary spending to make up for it while the Democrats did not. So Ryan's dystopian hellscape budget remains slightly more dystopian. I'm sure he's relieved to know that. The massive cuts in government spending in a fragile economy will stay either way.

She still overstates the case in her update, because the idea that discretionary spending was cut 17 percent from what Obama originally asked for in 2009 assumes that Obama's original discretionary number from 2009 was possible to get in 2013, and I think it's clear that's a fantasy. I'm not saying the Democrats couldn't have held out for something better than the $986B they asked for, but it's folly to pretend $1.2T was doable in this environment, especially when we know which party is willing to let hostages die to get what they want, and it isn't the blue team.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:54 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

But don't you agree that the Sequester has now become the norm?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 1:55 PM on October 2, 2013

And yet this fact is all too real: they've got the Ryan budget already. And they've already moved on to the debt ceiling, which all the Fox freaks were going on about last night. Krauthammer suggested they could get Obamacare defunded if they are willing to hold out. They all believe the consequences of a default are phony concerns made up to force them to back down and they are having none of it. That threat to back primary challenges in those gerrymandered districts against those who deviate from this dangerous delusion is quite real (or these members of congress believe it is, anyway.) So, they are going to play this all the way out.

If that's true, they're living in a fantasy. In reality, willingly and carelessly causing a default will wreck them. There's no "let the vets visit the memorial and pretend everything's just fiiine" with a default, it will touch everyone.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:57 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

It also makes an assumption that none of the Democrats have read that same publicly available Williamsburg strategy or that they've read it and are doing nothing with that information.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:59 PM on October 2, 2013

(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates: "But don't you agree that the Sequester has now become the norm?"

Yes and no. A continuing resolution is a continuing resolution, not a full yearly budget, so strictly speaking this is not part of the real budgetary process. But it is true that we've been eschewing the real budgetary process and running the country on CR's for a while. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) explained this on NPR last week:

SIEGEL: And we'll get to the debt ceiling in a second, but first, the continuing resolution. And a point where it seems Democrats and Republicans are in at least provisional agreement, is it fair these days to say that the sequestration that's taken effect, the across-the-board cuts to federal spending are the new normal and we should assume that they'll be the starting point for future spending talks just as they're reflected in the Senate Democratic continuing resolution?

MURRAY: I absolutely disagree with that. Replacing sequestration is one of my top priorities. I replaced sequestration with responsible spending cuts and new revenue in the Senate budget that we passed. That will be the vehicle that we go to conference with the House bill, which is dramatically different. But the cuts from sequestration, across the board, have hurt everything from medical research to people's salaries who are really critical parts of our government, whether they're civilian employees or they work for one of our agencies.

And we are seeing the jobs and economic loss as a result of this very bad law going into place across the board. So replacing sequestration is a top priority of ours as we go into the broader budget negotiations.

SIEGEL: Broader but not immediate for the time being. Whatever continuing resolution will continue the sequester cuts, right?

MURRAY: Here's where we are. We're not passing a budget agreement right now. We're just saying that because we have been delayed to a crisis point, we are going to keep the government open for a short amount of time to allow us to get to that larger budget deal.

I'm optimistic that this recent round of in-fighting will open a door for Democrats to push the "why haven't you passed a real budget" talking point right back on Republicans when all of this is over. We probably live with the sequester funding levels (though, again, not the same mix of spending cuts, just similar dollar amounts) for a while, but Democrats have a legitimate opening to push for restoration of funding levels, probably not to pre-sequester levels, but depending on how this GOPocalypse shakes out, maybe in a more progressive direction.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:04 PM on October 2, 2013

Best thing from Twitter:

Can I burn down your house?
No

Just the 2nd floor?
No

Garage?
No

Let's talk about what I can burn down.
No

YOU AREN'T COMPROMISING!

posted by MrMoonPie at 2:07 PM on October 2, 2013 [106 favorites]

the effort they should have been putting in to appealing to changing demographics for mid- to long-term stability*

There is no long-term hope for the GOP with the changing demographics unless they abandon their entire 'base'. The racism is way too strong. Their only long-term hope is based on what they are doing right now; take every short-run advantage they have to seize all the power they can and poison the entire system so it cannot be fixed.

Remember, even a 'clean CR' will only fund the government for TWO MONTHS. It is within their power to keep everything in Crisis Mode until the 2014 elections... maybe the 2016 elections. Seriously. And the argument to 'give it a year and more people see Obamacare is a good thing' is indeed countered by 'give it a year and more people will get used to non-functioning government' and they may be right. And as I argued earlier, the Koch boys and other owners of private corporations can weather the economic chaos of a Permanent Debt Ceiling more than most; in fact, so will a lot of 'small businesspeople' who will be delighted if the bank they owe money to became unable to collect on your debt, while they increase their 'under the table' economic activity believing the IRS can never reach them (a fallacy/fantasy, but a serious business plan in chaotic times).
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:08 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

If you, dear (American) reader, have not contacted your representatives and thoroughly chewed their ass, you are a Bad Citizen and will deserve what you get.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:21 PM on October 2, 2013

So far I've sustained my "call my Representative once a day until this is fixed right" record.

THIS.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:21 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

What's the point of chewing their ass if they aren't one of the tea party losers causing the problem?
posted by Justinian at 2:22 PM on October 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

My favorite nutball headline of the day: More personnel sent to WWII memorial than Benghazi
posted by octothorpe at 2:22 PM on October 2, 2013

Justinian: "What's the point of chewing their ass if they aren't one of the tea party losers causing the problem?"

Who's a stronger influence? The tea party, or your constituents?
posted by boo_radley at 2:23 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

you are a Bad Citizen and will deserve what you get.

Knock this off. Lots of people have been working hard to keep this shit from getting shittier. The whole idea that because crazy people decide to hold the government hostage we all "deserve this" because we're in a democracy is inaccurate and unfair.
posted by jessamyn at 2:23 PM on October 2, 2013 [51 favorites]

>brent: Let me know when Reid and the Senate vote on a budget.

They did, over six months ago. Since then House Republicans have refused to go to conference to reconcile it 18 times.

>brent: And that Senate vote was signed by the President to become law?

This statement is even dumber than you might think. The President never signs a budget resolution because a budget resolution is not a law. It has no force of law and has nothing to do with the President. Each house of congress passes a separate and different budget resolution that simply outlines their preferences for spending, to be later resolved in a conference between the two houses. The outcome of the conference is a single appropriations bill that both houses must then pass and be signed by the President. Budget resolutions do not authorize spending. Appropriation bills authorize spending.

So, no, the President has not signed the budget resolution and no President ever has or will. You know, the repetition of Republican talking points just emphasizes your ignorance.
posted by JackFlash at 2:23 PM on October 2, 2013 [34 favorites]

you are a Bad Citizen and will deserve what you get.

yo don't forget those of us that don't have a voting rep - do we deserve it, too?
posted by troika at 2:28 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

The crappy thing about calling my rep is I can't say anything to whoever answers the phone at Steve King's office that will actually get to him directly, I'd just be going off on a staffer who doesn't deserve that so I've gotta be all civil. Still gonna call this evening. He used to stop by our station in person for interviews sometimes but he stopped doing that after one of our interviews where he said some dumbass thing went viral and, y'know, he's in Washington pulling stunts right now and I'd get fired for saying anything worth saying to Steve King while at work.

Also he looks like a flesh-colored Grover. Just thought I'd get that out there.
posted by jason_steakums at 2:32 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Who's a stronger influence? The tea party, or your constituents?

I don't understand the question. If your member of Congress would happily vote for a clean CR and debt ceiling increase how does yelling at them do anything? Are they going to vote for it EVEN HARDER?
posted by Justinian at 2:33 PM on October 2, 2013 [9 favorites]

If you, dear (American) reader, have not contacted your representatives and thoroughly chewed their ass, you are a Bad Citizen and will deserve what you get.

Somehow I don't think harassing my representative is going to make things any better.
posted by aspo at 2:34 PM on October 2, 2013 [11 favorites]

What The Government Shutdown Means For .gov SEO
posted by KokuRyu at 2:34 PM on October 2, 2013

Not as hard as I'd like them to vote for it.
posted by DynamiteToast at 2:34 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

RedShrek: "The GOP are talking about funding NIH experimental care for Kids with cancer"

No, unless you have a citation, the only thing I see on the interwebs is: The GOP are talking about sending another microbudget bill through to allow funding of NIH experimental care for Kids with cancer... which is the political equivalent of spitting to put out a nation-sized fire.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:35 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

If you, dear (American) reader, have not contacted your representatives and thoroughly chewed their ass, you are a Bad Citizen and will deserve what you get.

Dear FFF: Each of us has ONE representative. There are these things called Congressional Districts, and they do not overlap. My representative is Jim McDermott, D of WA, and the only thing I want to say to him about his role in this is -- keep up the good work!
posted by bearwife at 2:35 PM on October 2, 2013 [17 favorites]

Oh, yeah, maybe it's just a misunderstanding of how the system works.

The Representatives who are causing this problem are people who represent very specific districts. People who do not live in their districts have no, zero, zilch, nada influence. You can't vote for them. You can't vote against them. Unless you're a big campaign donor they will completely ignore you. And that's not wrong of them; you have your own Rep.

Yelling at your own representative who is probably just as angry at these idiots as you are won't accomplish anything.
posted by Justinian at 2:41 PM on October 2, 2013

Somehow I don't think harassing my representative is going to make things any better.

Call her and ask for advice on how you can help. ;)
posted by Drinky Die at 2:42 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

boo_radley: "Justinian: "What's the point of chewing their ass if they aren't one of the tea party losers causing the problem?"

Who's a stronger influence? The tea party, or your constituents?"

THE CONSTITUTION!
posted by symbioid at 2:46 PM on October 2, 2013

Justinian: "Are they going to vote for it EVEN HARDER?"

Before I answer your question I need to clarify that I agree with jessamyn that not doing this does not make you a terrible person.

No, of course not, but I appreciate your sarcasm. There's a couple things to consider. (1) your VOTE EVEN HARDER representative will be getting calls (R or D) about how they need to vote no or something terrible will happen to them. So you show your support for them. "Oh, that ALEC lobbyist said I'd get my shit forefucked in 2014, good to hear all of the support from the voters" (2) You're represented by one of the people who are drawing the hard line. And then yeah, you do have some pushing to do.
posted by boo_radley at 2:47 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yelling at your own representative who is probably just as angry at these idiots as you are won't accomplish anything.

Well, it can't hurt to tell them you stand behind them so they don't go all wobbly and give in to the terrorists. You can bet there are a substantial number who are most certainly telling them to do that.
posted by JackFlash at 2:49 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

jason_steakums: "If that's true, they're living in a fantasy. In reality, willingly and carelessly causing a default will wreck them. There's no "let the vets visit the memorial and pretend everything's just fiiine" with a default, it will touch everyone."

These are the same people who disbelieved every unbiased poll in North America, leading up to the 2012 elections.

Seriously, no joke: these are people who distrust facts, and prefer to make massive, country-altering decisions on the basis of patriotic imagery.
posted by IAmBroom at 2:49 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Yeah, but their belief doesn't make reality untrue. There are real consequences for them if they force a default, even if they believe the danger of a default is all hype.
posted by jason_steakums at 2:51 PM on October 2, 2013

There are real consequences for them if they force a default

There are most assuredly real consequences of a default, but I'm not so sure about for them. These guys are already rich and have powerful backers. They'll stay afloat.
posted by troika at 2:53 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Yeah, even if you live in a district like Pelosi's, it's still not just okay but even awesome to call and say "Keep on keepin' on!" They count things like that.
posted by rtha at 2:55 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I am trying to figure out if sending my Congresswoman Kathy Castor a big sparkly YOU GO GIRL card would be respectful and appropriate.

I may just do it anyway, because she's sticking up for us unimportant people.
posted by cmyk at 2:55 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Right, and there were real consequences for the 2012 presidential election, like 'who controls the government.' But the belief in 'unskewed polls' didn't protect them from those consequences...
posted by kaibutsu at 2:56 PM on October 2, 2013

These guys are already rich and have powerful backers. They'll stay afloat.

These are people who laugh while children starve. They can't conceive of anyone having an experience different from their own. Remember how they used to mock Clinton for his empathy? As if the ability to feel what somebody else feels is a weakness?

Yeah, that's these guys.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:56 PM on October 2, 2013 [14 favorites]

Woah - so... I'm in the 2nd district which I generally perceive to be "safe". Tammy Baldwin and now Mark Pocan (Lesbian and Gay Reps, respectively)... But before Tammy was Scott Klug (I think there might have been some redistricting in the meantime....).

Wiki has this to say:

At the urging of Republican leadership under Newt Gingrich, Klug presented a resolution stating that the House would not support continuing resolutions to keep government funding; this led to the United States federal government shutdown of 1995 and 1996.
posted by symbioid at 2:57 PM on October 2, 2013

It was unfair to suggest all representatives need a chewing-out.

So, yea, you should be calling to find out how to best help, if you're not represented by a cretin.

I think calling your local, state, and Senate reps is worthwhile. They all have influence.
posted by five fresh fish at 3:04 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

I'm picturing a gerrymandered, last Republican Representative, all holed up in his political foxhole after the world has moved on, and he's out there with his NRA purchased shotgun, yelling at everyone to get off his Constitution.

ONE MAN AGAINST THE WORLD. FER FREEDUM.
posted by symbioid at 3:11 PM on October 2, 2013

I think you should stop advising us, FFF. For example:

My local rep is a County Councilman. He is a Democrat and he has no influence whatever on the House Rs.

My state rep is a Democrat too. And she has no influence on the House Rs either.

My Senators -- who are not "reps" -- are Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray. They, too, are Democrats who are performing admirably.
posted by bearwife at 3:11 PM on October 2, 2013

Are you sure those people don't need to hear from you?
posted by boo_radley at 3:12 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Yeah, I'm in the same district as bearwife, and basically the only thing Jim McDermott could do to lose his job would be to give an inch to these lunatics in any way. He's on Ways and Means, he's on the Budget Committee, and he's on the Health subcommittee. I'm not sure there's another Democratic Representative who has to deal more directly with these assholes in basically every appointment, and I'm certain he hates them more than any of us do. I'm happy to tell him to keep after them, but I'm not sure he needs me to tell him that.
posted by Errant at 3:13 PM on October 2, 2013

symbioid: " ONE MAN AGAINST THE WORLD. FER FREEDUM."

I believe the correct rallying cry is WOLVERINES!
posted by tonycpsu at 3:14 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Take the headline with a grain of salt as this is a HuffPo story, but it does seem that veterans are not, as a whole, impressed by the ruse of funding just their specific interests.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:17 PM on October 2, 2013

Are you sure those people don't need to hear from you?

Yes, very sure. Hearing from people who are either clueless about the official's job (county and state reps) or their consistent excellent votes (Cantwell and Murray) is not enlightening.
posted by bearwife at 3:21 PM on October 2, 2013

five fresh fish we appreciate that your heart is in the right place, but you've said your piece, please do not soapbox lecture in this thread
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:22 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

This week i've been walking around various battlefields in Belgium.

This morning, when I arrived at the US WW1 cemetery at Flanders Fields to pay my respects to the 368 men interred within its walls, the gates were locked. The cemetery was closed due to the shutdown.

I actually find it hard to describe the disgust... the sadness... I felt - and still feel tonight - at this.

I've been visiting WW1 battlefields and cemeteries periodically for almost fifteen years now. Although every nation clothes its dead in a different setting, they are always places where love and sadness are interminably mixed.

Surrounded by sometimes hundreds, sometimes thousands, at times tens of thousands of graves for men who - in most cases - had yet to even begin to live is the most harrowing and humble experience you can ever have. In those cemeteries the horrors of the Great War, indeed of war in general, are inescapably laid bare.

Yet at the same time they are places of peace, love and comfort. This is because they are always meticulously well kept and tended to by their respective countries and - most crucially of all - they are always open.

This is important because, although it might be hard to believe after almost 100 years, they are never empty. In 15 years I have been in more of these cemeteries than I could possibly name or remember, but from the largest mass burial site to the smallest collection of near-forgotten crosses deep in the woods the only thing I can say for certain is that I have never, ever, once found myself the only person there. In every cemetery there has always been someone else there paying their own private respects, whether to a family member or simply a fellow countryman, there has always been someone else there.

The ghosts of the dead of WW1, it has always seemed to me, are never truly alone. Nor do they deserve to be.

This is why i can't really describe just how I felt this morning standing outside the gates of that cemetery. In fact I'm not ashamed to say that this Englishman almost cried at the grievous injustice that was being dealt to the undeserving dead.

That feeling of injustice then turned to anger as I stood and watched Americans turn up at those gates and find their own entry barred. If there is one experience that is now indelibly burned into my mind it is having to comfort a crying elderly American lady who couldn't understand why, after travelling over 4000 miles for the explicit purpose, she could not lay a flower on the grave of her grandfather.

There are worse effects that this shutdown is (and will) have on more people, of that I have no doubt. This morning, however, for me I witnessed the politics... no the pettiness... of the Republican political party at their absolute worst.

That experience is now burned into my mind, my opinion of America now forever tarnished by an act of sheer malignity that has affected the very people the Republican Party constantly claim to represent.

Fucking wankers. Damn all of them. Damn them to hell.
posted by garius at 3:26 PM on October 2, 2013 [89 favorites]

For many of us, contacting our congresscritter isn't a useful thing to do: bear in mind that unlike a lot of current controversies, this is pretty nearly a strict party line divide, and one of the perverse effects of gerrymandering was to make Dem strongholds even stronger.

I for one do not intend to call my Senators or my congressman for the simple reason that I would be wasting their staff resources if I did. They feel EXACTLY as I do already.

But I'm open to other "act locally" suggestions. But preferably ones don't involve engaging the morons on the comments section of my daily paper.
posted by George_Spiggott at 3:29 PM on October 2, 2013

Given the Dems history of buckling, I'd argue that calling you representative is probably a good idea. Even if it's just to say "keep up the good work."
posted by [insert clever name here] at 3:44 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

What The Government Shutdown Means For .gov SEO

Huh, I hadn't relaized that most departments would shut down their websites as well. Just this morning, a friend in Arizona asked on Facebook how to get info on his state exchange and I pointed him to Healthcare.gov (which, kind of scarily, he hadn't found yet)... I'm glad to see it's still up even if the bombardment of interest is rendering it nigh-unusable.
posted by psoas at 3:50 PM on October 2, 2013

This morning, when I arrived at the US WW1 cemetery at Flanders Fields to pay my respects to the 368 men interred within its walls, the gates were locked. The cemetery was closed due to the shutdown.

I went running by the National Mall this morning, and there were barricades propped up around all the entrances with signs stating "Due to the government shutdown, all National Park Service facilities are CLOSED" but they'd been shoved aside and people were wandering blithely up to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I felt... conflicted.
posted by psoas at 3:53 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

This whole think is like the Frank Grimes scenario from the Simpsons except much worse and of course the Homer character is actually a complete asshole in reality. Grimes can't believe what he sees and what is valued and if he's earnest about it and a bit naive about how merit doesn't mean squat in this world, is I suspect how many Republicans see anyone who objects to their utter bullshit.
posted by juiceCake at 3:55 PM on October 2, 2013

Given the Dems history of buckling, I'd argue that calling you representative is probably a good idea. Even if it's just to say "keep up the good work

This and 1000x this. People generally only call to complain, but behavioral research shows positive reinforcement is much stronger then negative.
posted by edgeways at 3:56 PM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

I'm usually a pretty calm dude but I've found myself screaming obscenities at the TV and radio for the past two days.
posted by charred husk at 3:58 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

I sprained my middle finger.

Not really, but I find it popping up an awful lot.
posted by no relation at 4:00 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/10/the-gop-wants-to-restore-nih-funding-should-obama-allow-it/280203/
posted by RedShrek at 4:00 PM on October 2, 2013

Oh man, this is a good one: Grover Norquist is complaining that Ted Cruz misled and pressured Republicans into an untenable position that he incorrectly promised would be backed by a grassroots movement
posted by Flunkie at 4:01 PM on October 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

I repeat: Grover Norquist
posted by Flunkie at 4:02 PM on October 2, 2013 [14 favorites]

Grover Norquist should be issued an injunction against using the name Grover
posted by edgeways at 4:03 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

Ha ha ha ha ha!

/gasps, collapses
posted by rtha at 4:04 PM on October 2, 2013

Looks like the VFW also isn't going for it. (The director of benefits for the Paralyzed Veterans of America said the same, see previous link.)

Veterans want VA programs fully funded but don’t like being used as pawns in the political fight, said Joe Davis, spokesman for Veterans of Foreign Wars, the nation’s largest organization for combat veterans.

“The VA needs to be fully funded, not piecemealed and not used as leverage,” Davis said.

posted by George_Spiggott at 4:06 PM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

Grover Norquist should be issued an injunction against using the name Grover

Voldemort and Prince would issue injunctions against him calling himself 'He Who Must Not Be Named' or 'The Windbag Formerlly Known As Norquist.'
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:06 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Flunkie, you should have included the title, 'Norquist: Cruz 'Pushed House Republicans Into Traffic And Wandered Away' - too funny.
posted by dougzilla at 4:09 PM on October 2, 2013

The Tea Party wants to stand on the wreckage of a crippled and discredited federal government and say "Let the free market clean up this mess!", since they know Americans will all be too exhausted and confused by the bullshit parade in Washington and the relentless promotion of and intellectually deflationary concession to the content-agnostic Centrism of the "truth in the middle" principle to think critically about what really happened. We get a corporatist state where legitimacy and democracy are brought to their knees by unchecked economic power, and financial might makes moral right becomes the highest principle. That's why 1.8 million workers are without pay and people are going hungry and the whole goddamn world is laughing at us in shocked horror: to put the crown of legitimacy on a Koch.
posted by clockzero at 4:09 PM on October 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

I went running by the National Mall this morning, and there were barricades propped up around all the entrances with signs stating "Due to the government shutdown, all National Park Service facilities are CLOSED" but they'd been shoved aside and people were wandering blithely up to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I felt... conflicted.

Sadly, as is hopefully clear in the photo, the walls and gate at Flanders are quite high.

Not that boosting a sixty plus granny wasn't something I wasn't seriously considering after about five minutes of tears, mind.
posted by garius at 4:10 PM on October 2, 2013

We should take a tip from the UK and start referring to our conservatives as the Tories, given that they really don't seem to be on board with the whole "government of the people" as opposed to government by the propertied aristocracy thing.
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:13 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

So, in MN we recently had a gov shutdown when the (yes) Republicans had a hissy fit and refused to negotiate on budget issues. The next election they lost the leg, in part because of that and in part because they just where in a real mess (near bankruptcy and their top Congresscritter got caught committing adultery with her top aide), now that former aide, who sued the state, Michael Brodkorb wrote this little piece regarding shutdowns:

Lessons learned in Minnesota: Republicans should shutdown the shutdown
posted by edgeways at 4:14 PM on October 2, 2013

Or just as those shit asses with the elephant.
posted by Pudhoho at 4:14 PM on October 2, 2013

Seriously, despite their (historically laughably ignorant) cooption of the "Tea Party" label, how is the agenda of the right wing anything but a repudiation of the American Revolution at this point?
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:16 PM on October 2, 2013

uff da
posted by edgeways at 4:20 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Meet Butch Matthews, A Republican Who Came To Love Obamacare After Realizing It Will Save Him $13,000

This is a great story but this makes me so fucking angry:

[in 1997] he chose a Blue Cross Blue Shield plan for himself and his wife that charged a $250 per month premium and had a $2,000 deductible. But the price of that policy kept rising even as it covered fewer of his costs, eventually devolving into his current rate of $1,069 per month with a $10,000 deductible. At this point, it doesn’t even cover his medication or doctors’ visits — particularly concerning considering he had to have two stents placed in his heart in 2006.

That's fucking evil that they were able to do that to him, and he goes on to say that there was nothing else he could switch to. A thousand dollars a month, for essentially nothing. And this monstrous plundering of an old man's meagre savings from the business he built himself is the number one thing the Republican legislators are trying to preserve.
posted by showbiz_liz at 4:22 PM on October 2, 2013 [50 favorites]

But he had the freedom to not have healthcare and go die in a ditch!
posted by Artw at 4:26 PM on October 2, 2013 [14 favorites]

And he's still a strong Republican despite the fact that that it is the same party that employed lies, demagoguery, and all sorts of dirty tricks to kill the ACA. Gotta love it.
posted by RedShrek at 4:30 PM on October 2, 2013 [12 favorites]

"I would tell them to learn more about it before they start talking bad about it," he noted. "Be more informed, get more information, take your time and study and not just go by just what you hear on one side or the other. Actually check the facts on it."

And he's still a strong Republican? Just ... wow. I can't even process this.
posted by RedOrGreen at 4:38 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Thank the Good Lord and Ronald Reagan for that wonderful Obamacare!
posted by Flunkie at 4:40 PM on October 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

There is a big divide in the R party. That many completely disagree with the Tea Party wing doesn't make them Ds.
posted by bearwife at 4:41 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

“I still am a very strong Republican, but this… I’m so happy that this came along,” he continued. “Our home is paid for, vehicle’s paid for, this is our expense that we have. We have more expense on medical care than everything else put together, so this is going to be a great help for us.”(emphasis mine)

Gosh, he's lucky that Obamacare just... came along. From nowhere, one assumes. Just good fortune. Certainly nothing that the Republicans were involved with promoting or opposing, this is just something that happened, like a tornado or a volcano or coastal flooding or a toddler dying in a gun accident or an earthquake or a mass shooting, but fortunate. Some things just come along.
posted by Homeboy Trouble at 4:42 PM on October 2, 2013 [35 favorites]

We should be having this fight over single payer not this basterization. Don't get me wrong, all things considered I'll take it, but good lord this fight is worthy of something much more earth shaking, not a watered down market driven gift to the insurance companies.
posted by edgeways at 4:45 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

Oh man, bearwife, that link's great. Ted Cruz is reminding me a LOT of the joke thief in Patton Oswalt's essay about joke thievery:

Don’t worry – this story has a happy ending. Blaine and I eventually moved west. So did the thief. But when it came time for him to make the transition to television, to movies, to big-time fame and success? He had nothing. And, without going into details, he flamed out, rather spectacularly, on national television. Like, spectacularly. It was gorgeous for Blaine and I to watch. By that point we’d built solid careers for ourselves and when Kid Thief’s career hit the killing floor? It drained away through the sluice gate. I’ve never heard from him since. Kelly Oxford wrote something, during this latest joke thief debacle, about how the stealers and joke-thieves can often get themselves through the highest doors only to find, when they’re at the top and people want to hear their ideas…they’ve got nothing. Kill floor. Sluice gate. Oblivion. I don’t need to name names here. We’ve seen it happen. It’ll happen again. It’s always fun when it does.

I think Grover Norquist is a petty version of Blaine Capatch in this analogy. His complaints strike me as stemming from Cruz stealing the spotlight with the same material.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:02 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

Homeboy Trouble: "Gosh, he's lucky that Obamacare just... came along. From nowhere, one assumes. "

This is precisely the willful self-delusion that has led me to give up hope that Tea Party types (who are supposed to be economic libertarians) are doing anything other than working backwards from their desire to keep all of the money (and therefore all of the liberty) for themselves, leaving none for their fellow man. There are no atheists in foxholes, and there are no small-government types with expensive medical conditions.
posted by tonycpsu at 5:04 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

Well hey maybe with this piecemeal funding shit the R's are trying to push through, they'll just roll out Obamacare piecemeal to individual Republican voters.
posted by jason_steakums at 5:06 PM on October 2, 2013

jason_steakums: "Well hey maybe with this piecemeal funding shit the R's are trying to push through, they'll just roll out Obamacare piecemeal to individual Republican voters."

<Oprah> "You get an MRI! You get an MRI! Everyone gets an MRI!" </Oprah>
posted by tonycpsu at 5:08 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

My mind just f'ing exploded a little bit. A Republican Congressman from Texas, Randy Neugebauer, confronted a park ranger at the WW II memorial AND TOLD HER SHE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HERSELF.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE???

Warning 1: video autoplays.
Warning 2: some of those comments. Oh lord some of those comments.
posted by inigo2 at 5:17 PM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

Think you wanted this link.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:23 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I think what's wrong with those people is their senses of entitlement and arrogance take up so much room that proportion and shame had to move out.
posted by rtha at 5:27 PM on October 2, 2013 [16 favorites]

I've been thinking about Fox News replacing "shutdown" with "slimdown" and wondering whether this is betraying the long-term strategy, at least for anyone taking marching orders from Roger Ailes or Rupert Murdoch, that this "slimdown" is an unqualified GOOD thing that maybe should be made permanent 'for our health'.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:28 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

The park police should have arrested the congress people for dirorderly condict and rioting. Ideally pepper spray, tasers and batons could have been used because that's how par police rll when you give them who just ask ows vets. Let them sit in jail for the full 72 hours because the da and others are unavailable owing to the shutdown.
posted by humanfont at 5:39 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

So he turns up for his stupid stunts and wants other people to be ashamed? For what? In what universe does that make sense?
posted by Artw at 5:40 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

I don't understand how these people can lie with such conviction. Clearly the shutdown is all about repubs fighting for fairness! *dumbfounded*

I'm already incredible disillusioned with Obama and the rest of the dems. I had such high hopes going in. Then it became clear the repubs wouldn't let anything get done. Then it became clear Obama had completely different ideas of hope and change then I did. Close gitmo? Nah, we'll keep that open. End wars? Let's start a few more and drone strike everyone else. Punish banksters for ruining the economy during my prime earning years? Nah, let's not look to the past.

If the dems fold on this they will never get another cent from me. Is there anything left to do other than start an organized campaign to move sane people into the gerrymandered tea party stongholds? It doesn't have to be directed at liberals ("leftists" to you crazies out there). Let's get some sane republicans in there too, if there are any left. Maybe have a district that isn't a safe lock for one party of the other? So the elected representatives will actually have to pay attention to what people want? Why is that apparently way too much to ask?
posted by Arbac at 5:45 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Of course, that sort of thinking in 2010 got us here now.
posted by Artw at 5:48 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

If the dems fold on this

This right here is a good reason to call up your reps if you live in a true-blue district. Thank them for not caving, encourage them to keep not caving, and tell them you look forward to voting for them at the next election because they're not caving. It only takes a minute.
posted by rtha at 5:51 PM on October 2, 2013 [7 favorites]

This right here is a good reason to call up your reps if you live in a true-blue district.

Already did. Thank you Alan Lowenthal!
posted by Arbac at 5:53 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

If the dems fold on this they will never get another cent from me.

Nah, if the dems fold, it'll be as always with Obama - the cry will go out "11-dimensional chess!". This reminds me of nothing more than the Monty Python sketch The Black Knight.

Obama's right arm gets chopped off, blood is spurting out, and the cry goes out "11-dimensional chess!". The left arm gets chopped off, blood is spurting out - "12-dimensional chess!". Left leg - "13 dimensional chess!", right leg "14-dimensional chess!", and then they cut off his head just before he's out of the office, at which point the cry goes out "just you wait! Sleepy Hollow! The Headless Horseman will return and redeem it all!" "He will strike a mighty blow and the brilliant play will be revealed!".
posted by VikingSword at 6:02 PM on October 2, 2013 [11 favorites]

Republicans are psyched about the shutdown and have been since 2010, regardless of whatever they say in public. The shutdown was a goal for its own sake, and now they have it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:38 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

VikingSword, I agree with a big chunk of your analysis. The TeaParty is a real thing, an uprising of white guys who feel disenfranchised. They've had the barriers set at the lowest possible level, and still they're not feeling rich enough, powerful enough, and they're pissed. Pissed at Equal Rights for non-whites, gays and women, because that reduces their power. Pissed at the Republicans for not preserving their power, pissed at unions because who knows why, plenty of these guys have really benefited from unions, pissed about poor people getting food stamps, even though their cousin(Mom, Dad, aunt, uncle, child) uses food stamps to feed the kids after her husband took off, pissed off in general. It's the group that hates the ACA, but wants to make sure GrandDad still gets his Medicare. They love guns and the NRA/gun manufacturers play to them with ads that make them feel tough. Ever notice how many Tea Partiers wear camo, even if they've never hunted, never been in the service. They love that feeling of power and control and macho tough guy. The tea party may not be under anybody's control, but they're extremely susceptible to well-crafted marketing. Cause otherwise, why the hell do they consistency work against their own interests?

But the Koch Bros., Karl Rove and his ilk, Dick Cheney and his pals, the GOP, the gun/ defense/ banking/ megacorp lobbies, they have a plan, and they've done really well. The Republicans have become a caricature of a political party. They move in lockstep, have a strong message, cheerfully lie and distort, use scare tactics, and they are resistant to facts, common sense, common decency, and the will of the voters. They have been ridiculously successful in moving the entire nation to the Right. Obama looks liberal only in comparison. I think he's truly liberal, but also practical and smart, and is getting as much done as he can with what he's got to work with, but it sure hasn't been a liberal Presidency. I never used to be a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe there is a dedicated group bent on moving the country further and further Right. They scare the crap out of me.
posted by theora55 at 6:47 PM on October 2, 2013 [6 favorites]

Extra Bonus Quote of the Day
posted by madamjujujive at 7:05 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

psoas: “I went running by the National Mall this morning, and there were barricades propped up around all the entrances with signs stating ‘Due to the government shutdown, all National Park Service facilities are CLOSED’ but they'd been shoved aside and people were wandering blithely up to the Vietnam Veterans Memorial. I felt... conflicted.”

I feel conflicted, too, frankly. Conservatives are saying the orders to do these things came directly from the White House. I feel like, at the very least, somebody thought it was a good idea to put up barricades where they really aren't needed and add extra guards where there usually aren't any. And if the executive branch was responsible for this, well – disappointment.
posted by koeselitz at 7:18 PM on October 2, 2013

garius: "Sadly, as is hopefully clear in the photo, the walls and gate at Flanders are quite high.

Not that boosting a sixty plus granny wasn't something I wasn't seriously considering after about five minutes of tears, mind."

I've got to admit that faced with that situation I'd be tempted to make a trip to the nearest hardware store for a crowbar/hacksaw/file/wrench or whatever would "remedy" the situation.
posted by Mitheral at 7:18 PM on October 2, 2013

inigo2: “My mind just f'ing exploded a little bit. A Republican Congressman from Texas, Randy Neugebauer, confronted a park ranger at the WW II memorial AND TOLD HER SHE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HERSELF. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE???”

Presumably what is wrong with these people is that they believe it's unconscionable that a park ranger obeyed the White House's petty orders to shut down a monument that normal isn't very heavily policed anyway, and that was not supposed to be part of the government shutdown. I have to say I see his side of it, even if I honestly haven't decided how I feel about all this.
posted by koeselitz at 7:20 PM on October 2, 2013

Politico: Ted Cruz faced a barrage of hostile questions Wednesday from angry GOP senators, who lashed the Texas tea party freshman for helping prompt a government shutdown crisis without a strategy to end it.

At a closed-door lunch meeting in the Senate’s Mansfield Room, Republican after Republican pressed Cruz to explain how he would propose to end the bitter budget impasse with Democrats, according to senators who attended the meeting. A defensive Cruz had no clear plan to force an end to the shutdown — or explain how he would defund Obamacare, as he has demanded all along, sources said.

Bachmann to Hannity: ‘This Is About the Happiest’ GOP Has Been in a While
posted by Drinky Die at 7:22 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Dem caller on C-SPAN: "Next thing the Republicans will be repealing the 13th Amendment to get rid of Obama."

Me: "That's a bit much."

GOP caller on C-SPAN: "Hey, I heard what that Democrat just said about repealing the 13th Amendment and getting rid of Obama - GREAT IDEA!"
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:27 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

koeselitz: "inigo2: “My mind just f'ing exploded a little bit. A Republican Congressman from Texas, Randy Neugebauer, confronted a park ranger at the WW II memorial AND TOLD HER SHE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HERSELF. WHAT IS WRONG WITH THESE PEOPLE???”

the White House's petty orders to shut down a monument"

Citation needed.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:36 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

The staff are legally prohibited from doing their regular work, even voluntarily. I think it's a felony under the Anti-Deficiency Act. So if there can't be anyone cleaning up, maintaining safety and removing vandalism for an indefinite period of time, it makes sense to close the monuments.
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:40 PM on October 2, 2013 [14 favorites]

East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94: "The staff are legally prohibited from doing their regular work, even voluntarily. "

But does that instruction come from the White House, or an already written law? I admit I may be wrong, but I haven't heard such direct talk until now. I would think if the directive could be tied to the White House, and the White House only, the lunatics would have broadcasted that fact a long time ago.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:45 PM on October 2, 2013

me: “... the White House's petty orders to shut down a monument...”

InsertNiftyNameHere: “Citation needed.”

And I'm not very disposed to give you one, given that you've insulted me by ripping my comment out of its context apparently intentionally in order to paint me as a Republican stooge. But I'll try to give you the benefit of the doubt, if you do me the favor of going back and reading my comment, if only to note that I was stating Mr Neugebauer's belief, not my own. Note also that I was careful to say that I haven't made up my mind yet, as I don't base my opinions on handwringing on the internet, and (unlike Mr Neugebauer, apparently) I don't regard Breitbart.com as the font of wisdom.

I never said I thought the White House was being petty; nor do I believe they were. I was stating the current conservative belief.

Now: if you'd like to gander at the pile of fetid partisan dudgeon that apparently induced Mr Neugebauer to take this ridiculous step he's taken of excoriating Parks employees, you are directed here, and warned that that's a Breitbart link.
posted by koeselitz at 7:45 PM on October 2, 2013

Incidentally, that Breitbart article links directly to this, which appears to be about as trustworthy, although I've never heard of them.

InsertNiftyNameHere: “I admit I may be wrong, but I haven't heard such direct talk until now. I would think if the directive could be tied to the White House, and the White House only, the lunatics would have broadcasted that fact a long time ago.”

They've been "broadcasting" it all day, since at least noon eastern. I've been putting up with it from my conservative friends on Facebook and mostly trying to ignore them, as I usually do. That doesn't mean it's right, but it has been their narrative from the start of this fiasco. It's not really surprising, honestly; assigning blame to the other side in a shutdown seems like Hill Politics 101.
posted by koeselitz at 7:47 PM on October 2, 2013

koeselitz: "me: “... the White House's petty orders to shut down a monument...”

I never said I thought the White House was being petty; nor do I believe they were. I was stating the current conservative belief."

Then I sincerely apologize to you for my mistaken reading of your comment.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:51 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Bachmann to Hannity: ‘This Is About the Happiest’ GOP Has Been in a While

Those lying sacks of shit, I can't even...
posted by madamjujujive at 7:52 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Looks like 31 USC § 1342 is why the parks and monuments are closed.

"An officer or employee of the United States Government or of the District of Columbia government may not accept voluntary services for either government or employ personal services exceeding that authorized by law except for emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property. This section does not apply to a corporation getting amounts to make loans (except paid in capital amounts) without legal liability of the United States Government. As used in this section, the term “emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property” does not include ongoing, regular functions of government the suspension of which would not imminently threaten the safety of human life or the protection of property."
posted by jason_steakums at 7:54 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

Sorry, I came on a little strong there, InsertNiftyNameHere. I've just been trying to argue with conservatives about this for a while on Facebook, rather pointlessly I should add. At this point I'm just waiting to hear more before I make a judgement about what exactly is going on here.
posted by koeselitz at 7:55 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

koeselitz: "me: “... the White House's petty orders to shut down a monument...”

InsertNiftyNameHere: “Citation needed.”

And I'm not very disposed to give you one, given that you've insulted me by ripping my comment out of its context "

Not to dwell on the issue, but, upon my re-reading of your comment it's quite clear to me now that you were, indeed, stating their position rather than your own. It was a mistake. I assure you it was not intentional, and, again, I apologize to you for my mistake. I will step away from the thread now until my blood pressure drops to a reasonable level. Once again, I'm sorry.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:58 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

This is about the happiest I’ve seen [GOP] members in a long time because we're all just guzzling random assortments of narcotics
posted by East Manitoba Regional Junior Kabaddi Champion '94 at 7:59 PM on October 2, 2013

koeselitz: "Sorry, I came on a little strong there, InsertNiftyNameHere. I've just been trying to argue with conservatives about this for a while on Facebook, rather pointlessly I should add. At this point I'm just waiting to hear more before I make a judgement about what exactly is going on here."

No worries on my end. I think we're both in very similar boats, if you will.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:00 PM on October 2, 2013

But does that instruction come from the White House, or an already written law? I admit I may be wrong, but I haven't heard such direct talk until now. I would think if the directive could be tied to the White House, and the White House only, the lunatics would have broadcasted that fact a long time ago.

Introduction to the Anti-deficiency Act of 1884
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:01 PM on October 2, 2013

And make no mistake, if the administration chose to leave these places open, the same people screaming at them for keeping them closed would be screaming at them for breaking the ADA for nonessential services.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:13 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

Nice to see koeselitz and InsertNiftyNameHere make up. It is one of things I really like about Metafilter that when misunderstandings take place, people are OK about saying "sorry" and moving on. Very mature and adult behavior. Unlike some other people being discussed on this thread...
posted by vac2003 at 8:15 PM on October 2, 2013 [9 favorites]

It is nice but I'm still wondering about the directive. Yes, there's an 1884 law on the books, but that doesn't mean people just rush to enforce 1884 laws. Whence did the order to police the monuments and bar entry emerge?

An aside - I'm a volunteer in a National Park, and even the volunteers can't volunteer during the shutdown, not just the paid staff. We all got an email notice asking us not to show up until further notice and cancelling planned trainings.
posted by Miko at 8:40 PM on October 2, 2013

It probably happened as a consequence of the procedure described here: Meet Sylvia Burwell, the woman who ordered the government shutdown.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:52 PM on October 2, 2013

Policing the monuments and barring entry makes sense to me. The only legit way for nonessential personnel to volunteer without violating the ADA is in "emergencies involving the safety of human life or the protection of property" and blocking off access prevents both from happening on the premises with fewer employees.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:53 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yes, there's an 1884 law on the books, but that doesn't mean people just rush to enforce 1884 laws.

Personal perspective as a Fed: I have stuck my toe in the world of Federal contracting (on the government side) and during my week of extremely dull training, the instructors made a very clear show of how seriously the Anti-Deficiency Act (a.k.a. the Other ADA) is taken. As an individual, exposing the government to costs it doesn't have money to pay for is a huge no-no. It was also cited multiple times in my furlough letter w/r/t not being allowed to do any work while unfunded.
posted by psoas at 8:58 PM on October 2, 2013 [1 favorite]

Oh also, the Feds can be sued just like anyone else if you get hurt on their property due to employee negligence, and leaving parks and monuments open with no staff around could probably count as negligence.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:09 PM on October 2, 2013 [2 favorites]

It was also cited multiple times in my furlough letter w/r/t not being allowed to do any work while unfunded.

Oh yes. I got emails from very high ranking people in all caps and bolded stressing how important it is that I do no work. It is a violation of my contract and a fireable offense. Conversely, if my managers were to coerce me into working while furloughed, they could go to jail.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 9:13 PM on October 2, 2013

I was just thinking (sarcastically, not seriously): "Start turning the monuments into skate parks, and let's see how quickly they want those barriers maintained again."
posted by Drinky Die at 9:15 PM on October 2, 2013 [8 favorites]

No, you're right, Drinky Die. It's one thing when some sweet old vets storm the barriers to pay homage to their fallen comrades in arms. It's another when a bunch of 9th graders from Teaneck sneak out on curfew during their school trip and start tagging the Viet Nam wall or the Lincoln monument.
posted by Miko at 9:23 PM on October 2, 2013 [3 favorites]

And don't forget, it was pretty recently that someone was arrested for vandalizing several monuments; just having them open without normal amounts of patrols just isn't a good idea.

So, I repeat -- these people are fucking crazy, and the gall of that congressman to insult the park employee like that is disgusting.
posted by inigo2 at 9:43 PM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

A Republican Congressman from Texas, Randy Neugebauer, confronted a park ranger at the WW II memorial AND TOLD HER SHE SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HERSELF.

Shouldn't that be Randy Altzerstörer?

/language humor
posted by dhens at 9:44 PM on October 2, 2013 [4 favorites]

Government Shutdown scales back search for missing woman at Craters of the Moon National Monument

One woman already found dead, and they can't find the other. By now, it's pretty well certain that Dr. Blakeslee won't be found alive.

Liars, thieves, and murderers.
posted by BlueHorse at 10:02 PM on October 2, 2013 [5 favorites]

What I don't understand is the end game here. Obamacare is not being defunded or delayed. That is not going to happen under any circumstances. None. So are the Republicans simply going to leave the government shut down permanently? Can they do that?

Because they've backed themselves into a corner. If they completely cave and pass a clean CR and debt ceiling increase they're shown to be ridiculous buffoons. But the single demand they've all hitched themselves to, the gutting of Obamacare, is never happening.

What is the end game? Maybe they don't have one? That's kind of a scary thought.
posted by Justinian at 12:06 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

I think they started off believing they could delay Obamacare. I don't think they believe that anymore. It really is: “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”
posted by Drinky Die at 12:20 AM on October 3, 2013 [8 favorites]

You get nothing! You lose! Good day, sir!
posted by Justinian at 12:22 AM on October 3, 2013 [27 favorites]

I think the history of Boehner's speakership is going to be incredible to read. I try and follow it in the news but it just never makes logical sense. The dude is brilliant. He forces Obama into deals that are Republican wet dreams...but then the Tea Party tells him "No!" while Obama is screaming "Yes!"

And then when the Tea Party says "No!" he says "Fine" and gives them exactly what they want so they can never have enough cause to toss him out. The tea party goes into a rage because they didn't get what they want, but since they can't blame the guy who did what they ask, and they can't blame themselves, they just get more mad at Obama. Obama gets the credit for compromising on everything but often doesn't actually have to do it since they CAN'T SAY YES TO HIM.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:31 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

I don't think they wanted to delay Obamacare. If that was their goal, they might have been able to do so with different tactics. Once Cruz stands up in the Senate they've locked themselves into killing Obamacare or losing. I understand why Cruz did what he did. He wants the media attention and glory. I don't understand why any of his colleagues followed him.
posted by rdr at 12:32 AM on October 3, 2013

What I don't understand is the end game here. Obamacare is not being defunded or delayed. That is not going to happen under any circumstances. None. So are the Republicans simply going to leave the government shut down permanently? Can they do that

To draw on MrMoonPie's twitter analogy, the teahadists have already set the house on fire. If anything, it seems like that IS their end goal. Permanent shutdown of the federal government bar the bare bones 'essential' workers? Even better than getting rid of the ACA - if they don't get to run the government, then kill it altogether. So the question is, how long can they delay the firefighters being allowed to be called out to put out the fire? Or will they succeed in letting the whole city burn, i.e. pull the same tactic on the debt ceiling?

I see five end scenarios.

1) The democrats fold, and hand over some sort of big concessions to the teahadists to fend off a default and get the federal government running again, particularly around the ACA, but quite possibly something else big and painful for the public, and the teahadists and repubs slap themselves on the back for a job well done, and repub media blame Obama for the negative consequences. Given that would be a re-run of 2011, and set the administration up for the exact same problem every time there's a funding problem, I think the Dems have finally realised that that's a losing strategy that will cost them more than they can afford - it effectively hands control of the government to the teahadists, despite their small numbers.

2) As the shutdown continues to bite, and the threat over the default looms, and the feedback from the public blaming the repubs gets worse, enough sane repubs (for a fairly loose definition of 'sane') believe they're more at risk to losing their seats to democrats in 2014 than getting primaried by the far right. They then convince Boehner to allow a vote on a clean CR (keeping the sequester) and probably a debt ceiling hike, possibly with some sort of guarantee of a budget committee from Obama/Reid with the repub goal of a balanced budget in 10 years, aka the Williamsburg agreement. Such a vote, were it allowed to take place, gets sufficient support from Dems and Repubs to pass, despite the teahadists, and the budget fight gets stuck in for the long haul over making a budget that's not quite as nuts as the Ryan one. Boehner has allowed 4 bills to the floor previously that passed without a majority of repubs behind them, and Obama is pretty famous for handing concessions over, so it's definitely possible. The teahadists and their supporters will not be happy though, so the consequences for the sane repubs - and probably Boehner - will be stiff.

3) Either Boehner or Obama won't be budged from their respective position, and the shutdown continues right up to the debt limit crisis. Obama pulls out a trick like the trillion dollar coin - or just decides that choosing between obeying the law forcing him to spend what Congress has authorised and obeying the law that forces him not to borrow more than allowed, decides to break the law about the debt limit rather than let the economy goes down in flames on his watch. Either way, the teahadists will start impeachment proceedings, and the repubs will go along with that rather than be primaried from the right. The media blames both sides.

4) The same as 3, but Obama decides to follow the law, and the debt crisis actually happens, and the US government defaults. Teahadists are delighted as they the blame all the damage to the economy, loss of jobs, and preventable deaths on Obama, as does a good chunk of the media. A new worldwide depression is triggered, with permanent consequences for the US economy.

5) The sane repubs grow a spine, tell the teahadists to sod off, Boehner follows on, there's a clean CR without the sequester and the debt limit is raised with wide bi-partisan support, and the committee to sort out a compromise budget between the senate and congress starts like it would in an actual government that gave a shit about actually governing, without getting blocked by the repubs. This end scenario is too implausible to believe it would actually happen.

I think option 2 is the most likely, followed by 3. I fear 4.
posted by ArkhanJG at 1:19 AM on October 3, 2013 [10 favorites]

The VA gubernatorial election is in 30 days time with Tea Party hero Ken Cuccinelli on the GOP ticket. The potential of a severe voter beatdown is getting higher every day.
posted by PenDevil at 1:25 AM on October 3, 2013

The Washington Examiner article that Golden Eternity linked above makes clear how purely political this whole thing has been up to this point — and how completely clueless the controlling faction is.

I'm going to repaste the quote GE did because it bears repeating:

"This is not just about Obamacare anymore," centrist Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y., said.

"We’re not going to be disrespected," conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. "We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."

posted by wemayfreeze at 1:32 AM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

I never thought I would feel the slightest nostalgia for the days of Newt Gingrich. He was the bogeyman back in the nineties. I saw him in D.C. up close once and was tense about the possibility that his eyes would fall upon me, like Sauron, and I'd be fucked.

And now he was the *reasonable guy*
posted by angrycat at 3:41 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

> "We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."

What do we want?

SOMETHING OR OTHER!

When do we want it?

YES!
posted by kyrademon at 4:50 AM on October 3, 2013 [35 favorites]

The VA gubernatorial election is in 30 days time with Tea Party hero Ken Cuccinelli on the GOP ticket. The potential of a severe voter beatdown is getting higher every day.

Hey buddy, no worries, they're working on that.
posted by indubitable at 5:03 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

“We’re not going to be disrespected,”

Dude, if making a compromise—any compromise—makes you feel emasculated, perhaps you should find a different line of work.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 5:04 AM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

“We’re not going to be disrespected,” conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., [told the Washington Examiner]. “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.”

OFA and the left superPACs should be preparing ads with this quote and Michelle Bachmann's "overjoyed" one to be playing every other commercial break on the major network and cable shows for the next week. Hoist these fuckers by their own petard and let 'em dangle in the wind.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:16 AM on October 3, 2013 [14 favorites]

"We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."

Fuck. Four year olds throwing tantrums for sweets really are more reasonable. They want a fucking cookie every time they DON'T lie down in the road?
posted by Artw at 5:34 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

I don't think there's any thought-through endgame that results from a real strategic direction. I think this all about finding ways - any way - to be seen as someone happy to weaken government, which is what the nuts and their supporters think they want. Given that, it's hard to imagine a result they wouldn't spin as a positive in that light - hungry infants and mothers? Get 'em off the rolls, let faith-based aid step in. Closed parks? Eun 'em with volunteers - and police 'em with militia. And so on. I am hopeful that this will convince fewer and fewer people as the chilling moral cruelty of this philosophy becomes evident, which is one reason I'm talking to a lot of people about the "suicide caucus" and what a small minority and historical blip the people who have this worldview are, despite the outsize impact they're having right now.

I don't understand the debt ceiling well enough to predict what's going to go down there. I do think that two weeks plus is a fuck of a long time for the government to be shut down. My town is already up in arms and it's only been two days. If this goes on, I am hopeful that there'd be some high-visibility protest actions that, if they're smart and don't end up trying to bait law enforcement, could encourage public opinion to put more pressure on the R's.
posted by Miko at 5:35 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

...the bulk of FDA food inspectors have been deemed non-essential, so will inspect few if any food facilities until Congress and the president agree on a bill to fund the federal government... for every day the government doesn't work, approximately 80 food facilities will go without federal inspections. If the shutdown lasts until Oct. 17, 960 facilities may go without U.S. inspections.

Burger, anyone?
posted by Miko at 5:39 AM on October 3, 2013

Gee, Milko, let's hope Kentucky can get to the root of its recent salmonella outbreak.

Federal Government Shutdown: Impact on Food Safety May Compound Over Time
The current shutdown also means that FDA does not have personnel available to investigate outbreaks and perform tracebacks through the supply chain on foods suspected of sickening people. Of course, CDC also had to furlough its epidemiological staff, meaning the agency will not be available to support state health departments and coordinate investigations into multi-state foodborne outbreaks.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:52 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

The bastard children of Grover Norquist, "I don't want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub".
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:54 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

The right’s new lie about its shutdown intentions

If Ted Cruz is making John Boehner dance like a marionette, then Rep. Mark Meadows, R-N.C., is the guy helping Cruz keep the strings untangled.

He’s the author of the House version of the famous letter insisting that Republicans make funding the government contingent upon gutting Obamacare. He didn't, and won’t get Obamacare defunded. But the signatories to that letter are a decent proxy for the group of hard-line Republicans who are holding Boehner's speakership over his head and thus making the country ungovernable.

So it was a big surprise when he told reporters on Tuesday that, really, the government shutdown has nothing to do with Obamacare.

“This fight now has become about veterans and about national guard folks that perhaps — reservists that are not getting paid,” he said. “That’s where the fight is today. Obamacare is mandatory spending that’s going on.”

Well, that’s great news! If the government shutdown fight isn't about Obamacare anymore, then opening the government back up should be a cinch. Could be done in a matter of minutes.

But Republicans have no intention of opening the whole government back up. That’s why they spent all of Wednesday passing bills to reopen its narrowest but most visible and high-valence offices. Meadows was clumsily undertaking an act of subterfuge that has united the whole party. An attempt to distract the public and the press from the totem that’s been at the center of the shutdown from the get-go. Unbeknownst to him, Meadows was challenging the press not to allow themselves to get bamboozled by distractions from the real cause of the shutdown.

When NPR’s Tamara Keith asked the obvious follow-up — if it’s not about Obamacare anymore, why not pass a complete funding bill — Meadows devolved into gibberish and scurried away.

posted by zombieflanders at 5:56 AM on October 3, 2013 [8 favorites]

zombieflanders, you're right to call the parts of government they are trying to fund "high-valence." But one thing that confuses me - even though I should be too wise by now to be surprised at philosophical inconsistencies from these guys - is that some of what they seem to think needs funding should by all rights, if you believe what they believe, be the first things to go. The National Parks, for instance - this is a total drain on government funds, nonessential, a nice thing to have but not a linchpin of survival or quality of life. There are great natural resources in there that could be put to larger profitmaking potential than parkland. A lot of Americans will never even use this resource. There is no internally consistent small-government argument that would support national parks.

But they do know what people love - on Facebook yesterday, I called the parks the charismatic megafauna of government programs, and this data shows that:

95 percent of voters see "protecting and supporting the National Parks" as an appropriate role for the federal government

Even in these difficult fiscal circumstances, very few voters from either side of the political aisle say the federal government should be cutting back on funding for National Parks

posted by Miko at 6:05 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

I'm getting a bit more afraid now.

Is defunding the ACA just a Tea Party pretense to shut down the gov't? The Maddow piece, while certainly cherry-picking the more extreme TP'ers, indicates that the long game has been just shutting the whole damn gov't down and letting the citizens see for themselves that they're better off without it.

This can't be true can it? No, please. Just be insane about the defunding ACA, not the whole government. (Hold me.)
posted by klarck at 6:15 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

The bastard children of Grover Norquist...

Even Norquist is wondering what the hell Cruz is up to: ‘He pushed House Republicans into traffic and wandered away’
posted by PenDevil at 6:26 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

“This fight now has become about veterans and about national guard folks that perhaps — reservists that are not getting paid....”

This may be the most sincerely frightening thing I have heard in years if it's the dog whistle I have good reason to suspect it is.
posted by digitalprimate at 6:27 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Melissa McEwan:

House Republicans continue to do their damnedest to turn this into a story of "two sides who refuse to compromise" by passing piecemeal funding legislation, which they know Democrats will not support, only to then accuse Democrats of harming the people directly affected by that funding.

Representative Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) precisely called out their cynical strategy: "Any time they see a bad headline, they're going to bring a bill to the floor to make it go away." And then use the media momentum around that issue to accuse Democrats of failing the people.

My contempt for this shit cannot be measured on a scale fathomable by human intellect.

posted by audi alteram partem at 6:27 AM on October 3, 2013 [12 favorites]

Conservatives really can't be trusted with power, can they? Can't they have play-doh instead?
posted by Grangousier at 6:33 AM on October 3, 2013

The real story of the shutdown: 50 years of GOP race-baiting

Today, the entire government has been taken hostage by leaders elected by this crazed minority, who see in the face of Barack Obama everything they’ve been taught to fear for 50 years. Start with miscegenation: He’s not just black, he’s the product of a black father and a white mother. (That helps explain an unconscious motive for birtherism: They can’t get their minds off the circumstances of his conception and birth.) With his Ivy League degrees, they are sure he must be the elitist beneficiary of affirmative action. Steeped in Chicago politics, he’s the representative of corrupt urban machines controlled by Democrats – machines that ironically originated with the Irish and once kept African-Americans down, but which are now synonymous with corrupt black power. In Michele Bachmann’s words, Obama is a product of Chicago’s scary “gangster government,” or did she say “gangsta”?

Leading Republicans who know better have demeaned the president with a long list of racially coded slurs. Obama is “the food stamp president,” Newt Gingrich told us. He wants to help “black people” (or was it “blah people”?) “by giving them somebody else’s money,” Rick Santorum said. Even his so-called GOP “friend” Sen. Tom Coburn insists Obama is spreading “dependency” on government because “it worked so well for him as an African-American male.”

Where Mitt Romney’s father, George, stood up to the rising tide of racism in his party and marched in fair housing protests in the 1960s, Mitt himself embraced the birther-in-chief Donald Trump during the 2012 campaign. And when things got tough in the fall campaign, he and Paul Ryan doubled down on racial appeals by accusing Obama of weakening welfare reform – he hadn’t – and of giving white seniors’ hard-earned Medicare dollars to Obamacare recipients. And we all know who they are.

Now we have John Boehner, elected House speaker thanks to the Tea Party wave of 2010, shutting down the government over Obamacare. Boehner has the power to open the government by bringing a clean continuing resolution to the floor and allowing it to pass with the help of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats. Should we expect such courage? In one of his first major media appearances after becoming speaker, he refused to rebuke the birthers in his caucus. “It’s not up to me to tell them what to think,” he told NBC’s Brian Williams.

Now he’s kowtowing to the roughly 30 House Republicans from bright red districts that also happen to be almost exclusively white, in a country that is more than one-third non-white. They want to shut down the government to torpedo Obamacare, the signature program of our first black president. Obviously, though he’s the leader, Boehner believes it’s not up to him to tell the GOP suicide caucus what to think. Although the speaker told reporters after Obama’s r-election that Obamacare was the law of the land, and that a government shutdown would be bad for the country, he changed his tune when confronted with an insurrection, and the de facto House speaker who happens to be a senator, Ted Cruz. (Cruz’s father, by the way, just joined the ranks of those who seem to believe Obama is a Muslim, telling a Colorado woman who made that claim: “[Sen. John] McCain couldn’t say that because it wasn’t politically correct. It is time we stop being politically correct!”

posted by zombieflanders at 6:36 AM on October 3, 2013 [23 favorites]

Shutdown delays experimental treatment for Cape patient

National Institutes of Health director Francis Collins told the Associated Press that each week the shutdown continues, the NIH hospital in Bethesda, Md., will have to turn away 200 patients, 30 of them children, seeking to enroll in studies, often for last-resort treatments after they have exhausted all other options.
posted by rory at 6:36 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Oh, "blah people"! I'd forgotten that one. Good times!
posted by rtha at 6:39 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

NOT RACIST.
posted by Artw at 6:40 AM on October 3, 2013

3) Either Boehner or Obama won't be budged from their respective position, and the shutdown continues right up to the debt limit crisis. Obama pulls out a trick like the trillion dollar coin - or just decides that choosing between obeying the law forcing him to spend what Congress has authorised and obeying the law that forces him not to borrow more than allowed, decides to break the law about the debt limit rather than let the economy goes down in flames on his watch. Either way, the teahadists will start impeachment proceedings, and the repubs will go along with that rather than be primaried from the right. The media blames both sides.

Obama is forced to ignore the ceiling or allow default, and the teahadists immediately impeach. They have no endgame outside of talk radio, and shutdown, default and impeachment have been the agenda since 2010. Even if the Senate will obviously never convict, the teabags secure fundraising off opposing the Great Satan Kenyan Usurper through the next several election cycles and the wingnut welfare grift train keeps on grifting on.

This scenario says nothing about ending the shutdown, it could drag on for months, until the military starts getting upset and politely reminds the teahads who has control the largest military in the world.

Buy guns, America is over.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:41 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

"We’re not going to be disrespected," conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. "We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."

For some reason I am reminded of this.
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 6:42 AM on October 3, 2013

Is defunding the ACA just a Tea Party pretense to shut down the gov't?...This can't be true can it?

That's absolutely what's going on, yes.
posted by Miko at 6:43 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Now would be a good time for a little Occupy.
posted by Miko at 6:45 AM on October 3, 2013 [13 favorites]

Is defunding the ACA just a Tea Party pretense to shut down the gov't?

Really it's the other way around. Shutting down the government is one of the few things that the Republicans can do to try to unilaterally force their legislation through without having to compromise. They only control one house of congress and can't override a veto from Obama, so traditionally the only way for them to get their legislation signed into law would be to compromise and let the Democrats get a lot of what they want too. But since far-right funding groups control a lot of the money that actually elects Republicans, and those far-right groups grade them on who gives in to the Democrats the least instead of who can actually get legislation signed into law, they can't compromise. That leaves them with almost no options other than trying to make sure that absolutely no legislation gets passed ever, total obstructionism.

There are only a few things that absolutely 100% need to be passed in congress, like the budget and the debt ceiling, and the Republicans see threatening to obstruct those things as their only option to get anything done. But it's a crappy option because shutting down the government and/or defaulting on government debt hurts everyone including Republican interests, and it's transparently obvious that the Republicans are responsible for any negative impacts. It has never really worked before (pretty much every previous shutdown has resulted in either a compromise or a loss for the minority party) and has almost no chance of working now, but unless the Republicans change their overall strategy they don't have anything else they can do.
posted by burnmp3s at 6:46 AM on October 3, 2013

It's win-win either way for the crazy fuckers. They probably don't even know which they want themselves.
posted by Artw at 6:47 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

My greatest fear is that their plan will work. It goes something like this:

Part 1 - The Republicans essentially cause the shutdown. The media, in it's wishy washy "everyone is bad!" way, doesn't make this clear and just points the finger at congress.

Part 2 - The Republicans begin trying to pass bills to fund the most public facing items so that when they don't pass or get vetoes they can scream, "The Democrats don't want to treat cancer patients!"

Part 3 - The average joe, who only knows that "congress" is to blame, hears that the Republicans are at least trying to get something done and Obama is vetoing them. Blames the Democrats.

Obviously anyone who is paying attention won't fall for this, but their slavering base + dupes in the middle might be all they need.
posted by charred husk at 6:49 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Not discounting the potential ignorance of American voters and the spinelessness of American media, but so far nobody* really seems to be buying this as anything other than a GOP shutdown, do they? It's almost heartening, except for the level of shit that has to go down to make that occur.

* crazy people on Facebook and the Wall Street Journal excepted.
posted by Artw at 6:54 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

the long game has been just shutting the whole damn gov't down and letting the citizens see for themselves that they're better off without it.

It's certainly the dream of a relatively small number of anti-government zealots. And there's another, much larger, faction that will abet it. But I'm skeptical that this was the plan all along (except in the sense that this is the ultimate result of years of anti-government rhetoric) in this particular instance. Rather, it looks like an opportunity grasped at without much thought given to what would happen after or finally. That's worrying because in this kind of half-assed Mexican standoff, someone's going to get shot.

I learned last night that an in-law's in-law has a (usually) fatal illness. He'll be treated by the VA, if there's any VA to treat him.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:57 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Your in-law^2 will get the best care anywhere. We planned for this.
posted by klarck at 7:02 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

For some reason I am reminded of this.

I imagine the House Republicans talking to each other more like this.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:06 AM on October 3, 2013

Repost of Artw's link way-upthread Geography of a suicide caucus.
posted by panaceanot at 7:07 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

It's certainly the dream of a relatively small number of anti-government zealots. And there's another, much larger, faction that will abet it. But I'm skeptical that this was the plan all along (except in the sense that this is the ultimate result of years of anti-government rhetoric) in this particular instance. Rather, it looks like an opportunity grasped at without much thought given to what would happen after or finally. That's worrying because in this kind of half-assed Mexican standoff, someone's going to get shot.

That's what it sounds like from the Politico story that's popped up a few times in the thread. Cruz was pressed on his endgame by fellow Republicans and it turns out he didn't have one.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:13 AM on October 3, 2013

NPR had a story this morning talking to the mother of a young boy with Leukemia in the NIH hospital in Maryland, who's only bright spot in life right now was every week when they brought dogs around to play with the children. His mom talked about how he liked the small dogs who could get on the bed and sit in his lap. They told them earlier this week that the dogs can't come around because they're not essential.

The story made me tear up in the car and I'm doing it again at my desk now.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:16 AM on October 3, 2013 [14 favorites]

And as per the map linked by Artw & panaceanot, I wouldn't rule out "right-wing-echo-chamber" as one of the big reasons this is happening - when your source for "what the public wants" is a significant number of your constituents writing you to tell you that blocking the Kenyan Muslim's Plan For Socialism is your Number One Job, and you and your staff are spending a lot of time on RedState and Fox News, you could start to think that blocking Obamacare really has a ton of support.

So they instigated the shutdown genuinely believing that there would be a huge public outcry supporting them. Now that it turns out that's not the case in reality, they have no idea what to do.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:19 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Fox News headline (no link): House Republicans Probe DC Monument Closures Amid Slimdown

I threw up in my mouth a little bit.
posted by Curious Artificer at 7:21 AM on October 3, 2013 [8 favorites]

Statement on the October 1st Government Shutdown at Economic Equality and Anarchism blog
posted by jeffburdges at 7:22 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Also, this morning on CNN (take with whatever grains of salt you feel appropriate), there's GOP moderates huddle as conservatives set agenda.

So there are some glimmers of possibility that the moderate Republicans will break, and ArkhanJG's scenario #2 will be how this all resolves.
posted by soundguy99 at 7:26 AM on October 3, 2013

digitalprimate: "“This fight now has become about veterans and about national guard folks that perhaps — reservists that are not getting paid....”

This may be the most sincerely frightening thing I have heard in years if it's the dog whistle I have good reason to suspect it is"

I can hardly keep up with them these days. please elaborate.

man, I wish there was a decoder ring.
posted by ArgentCorvid at 7:27 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Rep. Todd Rokita To CNN's Carol Costello: 'You're Beautiful But You Have To Be Honest'
posted by Artw at 7:33 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

I can hardly keep up with them these days. please elaborate.

They're building a case for a military coup. That's the "Plan B" of the really way out wingnuts - they've never seen the President as legitimate, and want to use the pain of the shutdown to bring the military to the same conclusion.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:35 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

And do you know who else wanted to shut down the U.S. Government? That's right!
posted by entropicamericana at 7:35 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

OK, we can just end the thread right there.
posted by zennie at 7:38 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Obama is getting ready to speak at a construction company in Rockville, Maryland. Livestream via Washington Post.
posted by argonauta at 7:40 AM on October 3, 2013

This may be the most sincerely frightening thing I have heard in years if it's the dog whistle I have good reason to suspect it is"

I can hardly keep up with them these days. please elaborate.

I think the dog whistle might be that they're trying to rouse state guard reservists and vets against the Feds with some limp Shays' Rebellion-lite "you're not getting paid! get angry!" rhetoric? If it's anything like that I'd imagine it's really that they're actually trying to be seen as doing that, to the people receptive to the dog whistle, from behind safe cover to score risk-free disingenuous brownie points with the Confederacy and Minutemen fetishists. It would be such a dumb, dumb idea to pretend a fraction of a fraction of the national guard could go up against the actual military, this ain't the 1860's.

They're building a case for a military coup. That's the "Plan B" of the really way out wingnuts - they've never seen the President as legitimate, and want to use the pain of the shutdown to bring the military to the same conclusion.

If their target's convincing the entire military to back them they're barking up the wroooong tree. There are some shitty wingnuts in the services just like anywhere else, but as a whole they take upholding the Constitution as Serious Business and wouldn't play that game.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:40 AM on October 3, 2013 [10 favorites]

Just sent an email to my Congressman (Trey Gowdy, Republican, 4th district SC). Automated response: "Due to the current government shutdown and furlough of staff, we will respond to your email as soon as possible when normal operations resume." Ahh, bitter irony.

I couldn't find a phone # right away, but as soon as I do he'll be receiving a call as well.
posted by Roommate at 7:40 AM on October 3, 2013 [7 favorites]

Statement on the October 1st Government Shutdown at Economic Equality and Anarchism blog

... And this just in: Both sides to blame, anarchists say; state's legitimacy doubtful.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:43 AM on October 3, 2013 [7 favorites]

There are some shitty wingnuts in the services just like anywhere else, but as a whole they take upholding the Constitution as Serious Business and wouldn't play that game.

Agreed. They're risking their (considerable) military constituency if they keep pushing this, even from the extreme edges.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:46 AM on October 3, 2013

Wow, Rep. Akita is a condescending grade A asshole!
posted by cmfletcher at 7:47 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Obama's up!
posted by PenDevil at 7:49 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I've just been trying to argue with conservatives about this for a while on Facebook, rather pointlessly I should add.

You can have any sort of discussion with people who come to the discussion in bad faith. It is indeed, entirely pointless. That these people have not been laughed at but have gotten power is astounding.

I think option 2 is the most likely, followed by 3. I fear 4.

I think 4 is unfortunately, the most likely outcome. When your view of the world is so skewed and basically insane, you won't be able to appreciate the consequences, and indeed, the consequences will be someone else's fault.

This can't be true can it? No, please. Just be insane about the defunding ACA, not the whole government. (Hold me.)

Key word being insane, which makes it more than likely.

Representative Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) precisely called out their cynical strategy: "Any time they see a bad headline, they're going to bring a bill to the floor to make it go away." And then use the media momentum around that issue to accuse Democrats of failing the people.

Have people been calling out their bullshit from day one and the main stream media just doesn't call out bullshit but by the party line? 5 minutes of the Daily Show is worth more than a month of CNN.

Not discounting the potential ignorance of American voters and the spinelessness of American media, but so far nobody* really seems to be buying this as anything other than a GOP shutdown, do they? It's almost heartening, except for the level of shit that has to go down to make that occur.

This is one of the other astounding things about this and pretty much the only ray of hope.

Rep. Todd Rokita To CNN's Carol Costello: 'You're Beautiful But You Have To Be Honest'

You have to wonder when "the media", which clearly gives these guys a pass will get fed up with constantly being shit on nonetheless. It's like a bad marriage that goes on forever.

"We’re not going to be disrespected," conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. "We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."

A cold pop can up your ass would be just reward.
posted by juiceCake at 7:50 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

David Corn: "Can Obama Disrupt the Shutdown Narrative? Perhaps it's time for a 'have you no decency' moment."
posted by audi alteram partem at 7:56 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

panaceanot: "Repost of Artw's link way-upthread Geography of a suicide caucus."

Looks like once again Pennsylvania is the Alabama of the northeast. Sorry about that everyone.
posted by octothorpe at 7:57 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Not discounting the potential ignorance of American voters and the spinelessness of American media, but so far nobody* really seems to be buying this as anything other than a GOP shutdown, do they?

I don't know about that. I've been seeing things like this Daily News picture being bandied around on Facebook, including by people who are generally progressive in their opinions.

Spreading false equivalency to people who don't really pay much attention is a longterm specialty of Republicans and those who back them.
posted by Flunkie at 7:58 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

See * about the idiocy of Facebook loudmouths - I don't think much can be read into that.
posted by Artw at 8:00 AM on October 3, 2013

I'm not talking about "crazy people" or "Facebook loudmouths". I'm talking about generally reasonable people who don't pay attention, and who get taken in by crazy people who are trying to fool them into believing in the false equivalency.
posted by Flunkie at 8:04 AM on October 3, 2013

Confederacy and Minutemen fetishists

Another day, another bunch of dudes in funny hats who think it should be the time of slavery trying to lynch the black guy.
posted by Artw at 8:04 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Ironically, perhaps, you'll note that Alabama actually only has ONE "suicide caucus" rep, compared to Pennsylvania and Indiana's 4, Ohio's 3, and Michigan's 5.
posted by soundguy99 at 8:04 AM on October 3, 2013

Obama just quoted Stutzman's "We're not going to be disrespected. We have to get something out of this and I don't know what that even is" line. Nice.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:05 AM on October 3, 2013 [13 favorites]

In case you're not able to listen, Obama's speech is really laying it out clear - he's simply asking that the Boehner allow the House vote to on the Senate bill. I actually starting clapping at one point (even though I'm listening with headphones on at my desk).
posted by troika at 8:05 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

The 'Grand Bargain' Is An Insane Way Out Of The Government Shutdown
posted by Artw at 8:06 AM on October 3, 2013

soundguy99: "Ironically, perhaps, you'll note that Alabama actually only has ONE "suicide caucus" rep, compared to Pennsylvania and Indiana's 4, Ohio's 3, and Michigan's 5."

I was making a reference to James Carville's famous quote but yeah, you're right.
posted by octothorpe at 8:09 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

The real story of the shutdown: 50 years of GOP race-baiting

Not that Canada is land of zero racism but I constantly forget how much of US political insanity can be attributed to race (assuming this analysis is somewhat accurate) as it's so divorced from my regular world view. Complete bat crap insane behaviour/policy suddenly makes sense once you see it from a racist view with the goal of policy being to keep the black man down.
posted by Mitheral at 8:09 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

TBH Living in a blue state I'd probably forget it too, if not for big national politics blow ups like this.
posted by Artw at 8:13 AM on October 3, 2013

(Oh, and being here for the last two presidential elections - oh, the racism.)
posted by Artw at 8:14 AM on October 3, 2013

I'm hoping this isn't just Google pandering to me, but when I check the "Republican Party" tag on Google News, the first story is that Onion article.
posted by Peccable at 8:17 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

"We’re not going to be disrespected," conservative Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., added. "We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."

I'll see your quote and raise you an op-ed: former Bush speechwriter Marc Thiessen,

The GOP flunks Hostage Taking 101
"Let’s be clear: I’m all for taking hostages. Both sides do it all the time. But one of the first things they teach you in Hostage Taking 101 is that you have to choose a hostage the other side cares about saving ...

Obama will not permit an economic crisis worse than 2008-09 and the 'loss of millions of American jobs' on his watch. He has no choice but to negotiate with GOP leaders and cut a deal to avoid a government default.

... So what’s the smart move here, Republicans? Simple: Pass a clean, short-term continuing resolution to keep the government operating at current levels and then attach your demands to legislation raising the debt limit."

"A hostage the other side cares about saving," is a nice touch. It isn't often you get to see one of these maniacs confess to just how callous and power-crazed they actually are.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:26 AM on October 3, 2013 [11 favorites]

Ah, but "both sides do it". I mean, we all remember that happening, right?
posted by Artw at 8:28 AM on October 3, 2013

My dog whistle comment was based on ideas I mentioned in 2010. Basically, by specifically mentioning the state Guards and the reservists, it might be hinting that these people who are not active federal military but with access to weapons/training/local support might be angry enough to...well I don't know exactly. Resist LEO attempts to reign in their [surely coming in their minds] protests?

From your earlier comment:

Then someone I know pointed out that the National Guard, as abused as it currently is with active deployments, still retains enough assets and more importantly local geographical knowledge and support to…well you get the picture, especially if one considers the economic situation and political leanings of the average guardsperson.

You'd be surprised at how much more moderate the average guardsperson is than the average active-duty service member. Remember, the NG and the Reserves are people who do it one weekend a month and have regular jobs out in the community the rest of the time. There's a reason that dictators prefer large standing armies with military caste systems -- it's one thing for Sergeant Snuffy III, son of Sergeant Snuffy Jr. and grandson of Sergeant Snuffy Sr., all of whom spent their entire lives in the military system, to take up arms against a civilian population in an area he's stationed in that's far from where he grew up and that he never has to deal with as human beings; it's another thing entirely for Sergeant Snuffy, son of Grocer Snuffy and grandson of Auto Plant Worker Snuffy, to take up arms against a civilian population that he went to high school with right down the street.
posted by Etrigan at 8:28 AM on October 3, 2013 [8 favorites]

*furiously builds time machine*

*goes back to 1965, White House*

"Hello, President Johnson, I come from the future. We need your help. Congress is gridlocked and we have a President who just can't quite muster the same sort of, uh, influence that you are so well known for. Will you come with me? There's a man in particular I'd like you to talk to. His name is John, and if you could, I don't know -- threaten his family? Kidnap his dog? Whatever it is you do that will make him wish he could call Saul's vacuum cleaner repairman instead of remaining in his position as-- oh, right, sorry, it's a TV show that, well nevermind about that. Are you coming? Excellent, thank you sir."

"Oh, and sir? Your fly is open."
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 8:29 AM on October 3, 2013 [7 favorites]

Ah, but "both sides do it."

Walter White must have told himself the same thing at times.
posted by octobersurprise at 8:34 AM on October 3, 2013

Etrigan, I really want, "You'd be surprised at how much more moderate the average guardsperson is than the average active-duty service member" to be true. Had you asked me that growing up among them I would have 100% agreed.

Some places nowadays, some very particular places? Pushed far enough, I'm not so sure now.
posted by digitalprimate at 8:36 AM on October 3, 2013

LBJ knows his fly is open. You don't have to tell him.
posted by Flunkie at 8:36 AM on October 3, 2013 [12 favorites]

LBJ's fly doesn't even have a zipper.
posted by Aizkolari at 8:40 AM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

LBJ's fly doesn't even have a zipper.

He had his reasons.
posted by audi alteram partem at 8:53 AM on October 3, 2013

> But I have heard people talk like this IRL.
Bluster. Keep your eye on the ball.

> LBJ ... had his reasons.
Pre-existing conditions are almost a thing of the past. Not long now.
posted by de at 8:57 AM on October 3, 2013

* crazy people on Facebook and the Wall Street Journal excepted.

Crazy people on facebook and the WSJ make up half the country... I don't see how you can except them.

I dunno, I was disappointed by NPR this morning, since they sounded a bit too "neither side's willing to compromise" to me. The Daily Show has been very clear about what's happening, but they also were very cynical about the possibility that this could end well, since that basically depends on some percentage of republicans deciding to be reasonable.
posted by mdn at 8:59 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Then someone I know pointed out that the National Guard, as abused as it currently is with active deployments, still retains enough assets and more importantly local geographical knowledge and support to…well you get the picture, especially if one considers the economic situation and political leanings of the average guardsperson.

You'd be surprised at how much more moderate the average guardsperson is than the average active-duty service member. Remember, the NG and the Reserves are people who do it one weekend a month and have regular jobs out in the community the rest of the time. There's a reason that dictators prefer large standing armies with military caste systems -- it's one thing for Sergeant Snuffy III, son of Sergeant Snuffy Jr. and grandson of Sergeant Snuffy Sr., all of whom spent their entire lives in the military system, to take up arms against a civilian population in an area he's stationed in that's far from where he grew up and that he never has to deal with as human beings; it's another thing entirely for Sergeant Snuffy, son of Grocer Snuffy and grandson of Auto Plant Worker Snuffy, to take up arms against a civilian population that he went to high school with right down the street.

How do we know what the political leanings of either reserves and guardsmen or of active duty people are at all? I think this is just speculation on everyone's part.

I don't think there will be a coup.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:00 AM on October 3, 2013

Salon has a short interview with Rep John Culberson & the cognitive dissonance here is.. amazing. Keep your government out of my health care, but don't touch my Medicare.
posted by zempf at 9:01 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I dunno, I was disappointed by NPR this morning, since they sounded a bit too "neither side's willing to compromise" to me. The Daily Show has been very clear about what's happening, but they also were very cynical about the possibility that this could end well, since that basically depends on some percentage of republicans deciding to be reasonable.

Oh wow, who would have thought NPR would give equal credence to both sides without any regard for verifiable truths? The only surprising thing is that Jon "Both Sides Are Equally Bad" Stewart didn't pull the same crap on TDS.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:02 AM on October 3, 2013

The only surprising thing is that Jon "Both Sides Are Equally Bad" Stewart didn't pull the same crap on TDS.

Stewart is "both sides do stupid things" not "both sides are equally bad".
posted by Talez at 9:12 AM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

Neither side is willing to compromise. That does not mean the Ds are equally responsible. I for one am sure that the US public gets that. The polls have clearly showed that.
posted by bearwife at 9:16 AM on October 3, 2013

Live mic catches Senators McConnell and Rand talking strategy

Paul added, "I think if we keep saying 'We wanted to defund it. We fought for that and that we're willing to compromise on this', I think they can't, we're gonna, I think... well I know we don't want to be here, but we're gonna win this I think."

posted by argonauta at 9:16 AM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

I think TDS has been very good about bringing an accurate picture of the situation. No false equivalences have been drawn.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 9:18 AM on October 3, 2013

How do we know what the political leanings of either reserves and guardsmen or of active duty people are at all? I think this is just speculation on everyone's part.

I spent eleven years on active duty in the Army, including during the 2000 presidential election when my civilian friends were actually worried about a coup and my military friends laughed at the idea of it. I've spent a further eight years on reserve duty in the Army and would be putting my uniform on right about now if it weren't for the shutdown. I currently work for an Army agency. I've spent nearly all of that time being the leftiest person in any unit I was in (I have LGBT friends who were serving under DADT who are farther right than I am) and have developed a pretty keen sense of when, where and to whom I can talk politics.

Am I speculating that there won't be a coup? Yes, just like I can only speculate that the Tigers are going to win the ALDS. But please don't imply that it's uninformed speculation.
posted by Etrigan at 9:20 AM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

Etrigan, I really want, "You'd be surprised at how much more moderate the average guardsperson is than the average active-duty service member" to be true. Had you asked me that growing up among them I would have 100% agreed.

Some places nowadays, some very particular places? Pushed far enough, I'm not so sure now.

Oh, sure, there's some part-timers who are farther into wackadoo territory than any full-timer, but the real "They're coming to take our guns!" types don't generally last long. Turns out they don't like following orders from anyone.
posted by Etrigan at 9:21 AM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

I was disappointed by NPR this morning, since they sounded a bit too "neither side's willing to compromise" to me.

I agree. I think it was Mara Liasson's story that bothered me - she absolutely framed it this way. Disappointing. Not because it's not lefty enough for me, but because it's not journalistically objective enough.
posted by Miko at 9:22 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

I wonder if Tropical Storm Karen will affect any of this.
posted by troika at 9:23 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I had to pull over and cry this morning after hearing about how NIH has had to cancel the weekly visits by comfort animals for kids undergoing cancer treatment. Also it isn't half the country at this point, it is 30% of the country at most. Voters are blaming republicans for this overwhelmingly. They are really angry and I predict a number of congressmen in red who thought they were safe will face primary challenges from their own party funded by the chamber of commerce and other business oriented Republicans.
posted by humanfont at 9:24 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Salon has a short interview with Rep John Culberson & the cognitive dissonance here is.. amazing. Keep your government out of my health care, but don't touch my Medicare.

I was going through emails that come in via one of our (work) site's Contact Us links on Tuesday, skimming through in order to forward them on to the appropriate staff person. We have what's turning out to be an extremely popular subsidy calculator on our site, and of course on Tuesday it completely fell down and cried mercy. One email was from someone writing from a .mil address who wrote to say that the calculator was not working and that was NO SURPRISE AS GOVERNMENT SHOULD NOT BE IN CHARGE OF HEALTH CARE. (NB: We are not a government agency, just a nonprofit policy org.)

It's a good thing that it's not my job to write back to people like this.
posted by rtha at 9:25 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Just for the record the IRL people to whom I referred weren't talking about a coup at all but as I said the means to support secession should it come to that.

And I don't think it will come to that nor do I think there will be a coup. Just reporting some anecdotal experience and trying to show how it might be related to a possible dog whistle.

I probably should have been more clear about all of that. Sorry.
posted by digitalprimate at 9:26 AM on October 3, 2013

Was it the Juan Williams backlash that really crystallized the current state of limp "both sides are equal" NPR reporting? It seems like that's when it became the norm.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:26 AM on October 3, 2013

I think Senator Paul has sadly miscalculated, as have the rest of the Rs, how dangerous it is to depend on a tag line ("won't negotiate") to save your hide when facing an enormously articulate President with a big microphone.
posted by bearwife at 9:26 AM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

They are really angry and I predict a number of congressmen in red who thought they were safe will face primary challenges from their own party funded by the chamber of commerce and other business oriented Republicans.

I'd be more sanguine about this, but my own business-oriented Governor (Rick Snyder, Michigan) has been letting the social-conservative wackadoos do whatever the hell they want as long as they go along with his fiscal-conservative policies (which they would have anyway). So they've been able to repeal the motorcycle helmet law, push back hard on same-sex benefits, etc. Oh, and just last month, a House committee passed a bill to deny unemployment benefits if you fail a drug test, and the Senate one-upped them by passing a bill to require welfare recipients (i.e., single mothers) to perform community service.
posted by Etrigan at 9:30 AM on October 3, 2013

Was it the Juan Williams backlash that really crystallized the current state of limp "both sides are equal" NPR reporting? It seems like that's when it became the norm.

For all their talk about receiving a lot of their funding from "listeners like you" they still get a chunk of funding from the CPB which is vulnerable. I felt like the "both sides" shit was empty platitudes that they knew would be forgiven because what they really felt was revealed in the "no comfort animals for sick kids" story. But yeah the Tea Party and NPR have a longstanding animosity such that NPR is careful, I think, about the appearance of partiality in stories involving them.
posted by jessamyn at 9:31 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

So we've been cutting spending at a faster pace than Paul Ryan wanted to when Republicans took over Congress.

On discretionary spending at least, that's right. And that's what we're pointing out. We've already essentially adopted that Ryan budget, and obviously that was not seen at the time as a moderate approach to government spending.

Progressives have already been soundly defeated, the Austerity movement was fully embraced by Obama and the CR numbers in question today are vastly inadequate, hundreds of billions below the president's last budget request (which he immediately ran from and never mentioned again). The Teahadists and 1% class warriors already won, the federal government was already crippled before the shutdown, operating on a shoestring budget and bleeding productive capacity in the middle of a depression, incapable of doing the barest minimum to alleviate widespread economic hardship. Obama willingly gave up the game, he did everything that they asked him to short of block granting medicaid and stealth-cutting SS benefits by adopting chained CPI, and it still wasn't enough. They want more cuts, more pain, more tax breaks, less (preferably zero) social welfare spending, and they're crashing the economy to get it.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:35 AM on October 3, 2013 [13 favorites]

Slate: How the government shutdown would be described in the US media if it was happening in another country.

The Next Six Months will determine the fate of American Democracy
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:37 AM on October 3, 2013

Krugman: "My bet now is that we actually do go over the line for a day or two. And what ends the immediate crisis is not Republican action but a decision by Obama to declare himself not bound by the debt ceiling. He can’t even hint at this possibility until the thing actually happens, because he has to keep the focus on the Republicans, and he has to make them demonstrate their utter irresponsibility before he can take any extraordinary action.

But maybe I’m wrong; maybe Obama’s lawyers have concluded that there’s really nothing he can do. If so, God help us all."
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:38 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I wonder if Tropical Storm Karen will affect any of this.

WELCOME TO 2013: Your scheduled emotion for the day is A HORRIBLE SINKING FEELING

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES: Staring out the window into the middle distance, holding your loved ones a little too tight for a little too long, daytime drinking.
posted by The Whelk at 9:39 AM on October 3, 2013 [31 favorites]

when facing an enormously articulate President with a big microphone.

"There are enough Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives today that if the speaker of the House, John Boehner, simply let the bill get on the floor for an up or down vote, every congressman could vote their conscience, the shutdown would end today," Obama said in a speech in Rockville, Maryland.

"The only thing that is keeping the government shut down, the only thing preventing people from going back to work, and basic research starting back up, and farmers and small business owners, getting their loans -- the only thing that's preventing all that from happening right now today, in the next five minutes, is that Speaker John Boehner won't even let the bill get a yes or no vote because he doesn't want to anger the extremists in his party."

Oooh that's the good stuff. I'm really heartened to see he's opening with the most important stone-cold fact underpinning this clusterfuck and not starting on the defensive, acting like he has to win hearts and minds on this.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:40 AM on October 3, 2013 [22 favorites]

Well, there it is. Following NASA, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory has run out of money to safely continue all operations, and is shutting down on Friday. All the huge radio telescopes (VLA, Green Bank, VLBA) are going to mostly idle, while the (fiercely competitive) observing time is wasted. Good work, guys.
posted by RedOrGreen at 9:47 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Neither side is willing to compromise.

The oft cited "Obamacare" is full of compromise.
posted by juiceCake at 9:51 AM on October 3, 2013 [7 favorites]

Following NASA, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory has run out of money to safely continue all operations, and is shutting down on Friday. All the huge radio telescopes (VLA, Green Bank, VLBA) are going to mostly idle...

Oh crap, we're not going to be able to spot that asteroid the size of Texas in time enough to round up a team of plucky oil rig workers now.
posted by entropicamericana at 9:53 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Well, there it is. Following NASA, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory has run out of money to safely continue all operations, and is shutting down on Friday. All the huge radio telescopes (VLA, Green Bank, VLBA) are going to mostly idle, while the (fiercely competitive) observing time is wasted. Good work, guys.

Science is for atheist commie liberals.
posted by Artw at 9:53 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Please, let's not call the Tea Party Congresscritters a "suicide caucus". This compares them to the radical suicide bombers who, while even more irrationally extreme, were willing and eager to allow themselves to die for their cause. The so-called "suicide caucus" are all in some of the safest House seats in the country. No challenge from the other party, or anyone within their own party for their continuing in their comfortable seats of power for the foreseeable future. Nothing suicidal here, and the designation misleads us into believing that there is a way this crisis can end that will make them go away.

A few Islamophobes wanted to rename "suicide bombers" as "homicide bombers". Such a change is far more appropriate here. This is the "homicide caucus".
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:53 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Kidnapper Caucus
posted by aramaic at 9:54 AM on October 3, 2013

Counterproductive Caucus? Dumbass Caucus? Fuck You, Got Mine Caucus?
posted by rtha at 9:55 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Following NASA, the National Radio Astronomy Observatory has run out of money to safely continue all operations, and is shutting down on Friday.

"Xrblt-49, are we prepared to send the Galactic Community Welcome Message to the Earth-lings?"
"Yes, Hnftra-37. We estimate that it will arrive at their local-calendar date of Sepp-temm-burr 28th."
"Hm. No, let's put it off for a few of their rotational cycles. That is just before the beginning of their fiscal year. We want to be certain that there will be plenty of funding available to ensure that the large observatories we have seen will receive it."
"I knew your MBA would come in handy some day."
posted by Etrigan at 9:55 AM on October 3, 2013 [14 favorites]

WASHINGTON — With a budget deal still elusive and a deadline approaching on raising the debt ceiling, Speaker John A. Boehner has told colleagues that he is determined to prevent a federal default and is willing to pass a measure through a combination of Republican and Democratic votes, according one House Republican

We'll see Boehner, we'll see.
posted by edgeways at 9:56 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Progressives have already been soundly defeated, the Austerity movement was fully embraced by Obama and the CR numbers in question today are vastly inadequate, hundreds of billions below the president's last budget request (which he immediately ran from and never mentioned again).

That's because we needed to win the 2010 election. Some people (Rachel Maddow) *cough* told progressives to stay home. This is what you get.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:57 AM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

I wonder if Tropical Storm Karen will affect any of this.

Oh shit. There's a storm coming.
posted by octobersurprise at 9:58 AM on October 3, 2013 [7 favorites]

Well, it's day 3. Only us contractors here, the government employees all were sent home on Monday. I'm surprisingly busy, configuring laptops and mobile devices. A lot of the contractors are keeping their people at home but having them telework. Some of them are having issues so they're bringing their stuff into the office, where I am to get it fixed.

I admit to feeling a bit of "survivor guilt" over still being here and collecting a paycheck while a lot of my friends who are competent, capable, good people, have all been sent home.
posted by smoothvirus at 10:05 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Thinking of "guilt" produced this thought in my mind...

In a just world, Boehner and his ilk would all would commit seppuku out of shame at what they did to their country and political institutions.
posted by symbioid at 10:06 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Obama, in his speech, railed pretty hard on Boehner. Now Harry Reid is saying the shutdown is specifically Boehner's fault. I mean, this shutdown is largely on Boehner, but it seems like the Dems have been saying "Republicans" up until now. I think Boehner may have been the only one called out by name in Obama's speech.

I guess that meeting yesterday didn't go so well.
posted by troika at 10:09 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Obama and Reid calling Boehner out by name is fine and dandy with me. Think about all the insults Obama and his family have had to endure from Republicans and Conservatives. What Obama is saying about Boehner is nothing and to be honest, it's true. Boehner is the Speaker so it's all on him.
posted by RedShrek at 10:12 AM on October 3, 2013 [13 favorites]

Also, by naming Boehner instead of Cruz, they deny Cruz any legitimacy. He's the yappy dog that his master needs to bring to heel now.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:13 AM on October 3, 2013 [17 favorites]

Pinning it on the fucker only seems fair after they renamed ACA Obamacare...

I suggest BoenherBlock.
posted by Artw at 10:14 AM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

I think being called out by name like that is going to make it worse for Boehner when/if he does end up allowing a vote on a clean bill. It makes it harder to claim victory in doing so and easier for him to be attacked from the right.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:15 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

He also did not name Rep. Stutzman but did read the quote “We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is.” and attributed it to a tea party congressman.
posted by cmfletcher at 10:15 AM on October 3, 2013

Oh, I'm not saying that calling out Boehner by name is a bad thing. Just taking note of the fact that it's happening more often and more forcefully now.
posted by troika at 10:16 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I think being called out by name like that is going to make it worse for Boehner when/if he does end up allowing a vote on a clean bill. It makes it harder to claim victory in doing so and easier for him to be attacked from the right.

If there were any chance of that happening, I don't think Obama would be calling him out like this.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:16 AM on October 3, 2013

Splitting the Republican party is the only way out of this mess. If Boehner is the fracture point, then now is the time to apply maximum pressure to him.
posted by vibrotronica at 10:18 AM on October 3, 2013

I suggest BoenherBlock.

So what you're saying is someone needs to fall on the grenade and sleep with Boenher's fat best friend so that we can restore a functioning government?
posted by Talez at 10:19 AM on October 3, 2013

OMG, the graphic on the front page of Fox News!
"Why Face This..." (white men)
"When you can find this?" (Obama hugging a black woman)

hahaha, that is their angle on this? Critiquing Obama for being a coward for not negotiating with the people who have taken the economy hostage for partisan concessions?
posted by Theta States at 10:19 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

It's terrifying that someone as spineless as Boehner is second in the line of succession.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:20 AM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

Focusing on Boehner keeps the narrative simple and within sound-bite limits.
posted by klarck at 10:21 AM on October 3, 2013

"Am I working? No, I'm on Boenher Break."
posted by Artw at 10:22 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Oh man, I love that they're calling him out for leaving DC. The speech was in Rockville, Maryland, which is just outside of DC. It's so close to DC, it's on the metro.
posted by troika at 10:23 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Focusing on Boehner keeps the narrative simple and within sound-bite limits.

Yes, and it also gives people a specific target for their outrage, rather than the easy go-to narrative "Those Clowns in Congress What a Bunch of Clowns".
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:23 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Splitting the Republican party is the only way out of this mess. If Boehner is the fracture point, then now is the time to apply maximum pressure to him.

The House GOP has spent the last few years doing absolutely nothing except voting to repeal ACA. After they refuse to raise the debt ceiling, Obama will have to ignore it one way or another. They will then spend the next three years voting to impeach Obama. The only way out of this is if moderates somehow take back the GOP or the GOP wins the Senate and the Presidency - in which case they will probably immediately raise the debt ceiling and replace ACA with (if this stretches out long enough and people actually like ACA) something probably nearly identical.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:23 AM on October 3, 2013

Hey troika, don't you know that there's an awesome Dave and Busters in Rockville? Obama's there playing air hockey.
posted by RedShrek at 10:24 AM on October 3, 2013

I was about to post the same link as troika did above, which has a video of Reid giving a pretty good speech. While I was getting my comment ready, the Post toned down the title of that update which was originally: Reid mocks Boehner: 'I'm sorry I hurt your feelings'.
posted by exogenous at 10:24 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Wow, Fox really is exceeding itself in racist bullshit there, isn't it?
posted by Artw at 10:25 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Now known as "RepubliCare A Lot"
posted by symbioid at 10:25 AM on October 3, 2013

Looks like it's just #BoehnerShutdown.
posted by cmfletcher at 10:25 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

I wonder if Tropical Storm Karen will affect any of this.

Republicans will draft a bill to fund FEMA trailers.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 10:26 AM on October 3, 2013

@ Golden Eterenity,

You're joking about moderates in the GOP right? "Moderates" and "GOP" are two terms that don't belong in the same sentence.
posted by RedShrek at 10:26 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Oh man, I love that they're calling him out for leaving DC. Seriously. That's East Gude Drive, 20 minutes from the White House, tops.
posted by smoothvirus at 10:26 AM on October 3, 2013

Republicans will draft a bill to fund FEMA trailers.

Only for people who have photo ID.
posted by Talez at 10:27 AM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

My fellow MeFites, I rise on a question on personal privilege.

I would like to apologize for this comment I made up-thread:

If you remember your Schoolhouse Rock "I'm Just a Bill" cartoon, what then happens is the two chambers meet in a conference committee to hammer out their differences.

I was operating under the assumption that the basic rules of our checks and balances are the same since 1975 when the "I'm Just a Bill" segment first aired, but it turns out there are some new rules, and, as it turns out, a new cartoon to helpfully explain these new rules.

Having familiarized myself with these new rules, it turns out this is all Obama's fault, and he's just not fighting hard against the diamond-mounted laser satellites and apocalypse cannibal hordes.

I sincerely regret the error.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:27 AM on October 3, 2013 [28 favorites]

I can still totally see this happening though: in response to being singled out, Boehner gives a series of interviews trying to paint Obama as a bully making personal attacks. Not once does the interviewer mention that what Obama's saying is true.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:30 AM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

Now known as "RepubliCare A Lot"

I don't know about you but Republicans staring at me intensely would just scare the fuck out of me.
posted by Talez at 10:31 AM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

Obama tweet: Tea Party extremists caused this #BoehnerShutdown. Tell @SpeakerBoehner to end it now: http://OFA.BO/9cFiuk pic.twitter.com/WW4soKEibu
posted by inigo2 at 10:32 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Boehner Tells Republicans He Won’t Let the Nation Default

huh. Well, maybe I'm wrong.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:32 AM on October 3, 2013

huh. Well, maybe I'm wrong.

sometimes I'm right, sometimes I'm wrong
sometimes I ask myself; my god what I have I done?
posted by The Whelk at 10:38 AM on October 3, 2013 [9 favorites]

"The only thing that is keeping the government shut down, the only thing preventing people from going back to work, and basic research starting back up, and farmers and small business owners, getting their loans -- the only thing that's preventing all that from happening right now today, in the next five minutes, is that Speaker John Boehner won't even let the bill get a yes or no vote because he doesn't want to anger the extremists in his party."

I've been chatting all day about this with a buddy of mine and he put it this way, "Boehner is facing the choice between keeping his job, or letting 800K federal workers do theirs."

Dude should be a speechwriter.
posted by Panjandrum at 10:39 AM on October 3, 2013 [9 favorites]

Golden Eternity: "Boehner Tells Republicans He Won’t Let the Nation Default"

Well of course he won't but he can't stop Emperor Obama from doing it!
/culled from local paper comments section
posted by Big_B at 10:41 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Boehner's word is worth nothing, at this point. He has no power over his own caucus.
posted by raysmj at 10:51 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

"God help us all" is generally not the outlook on the future I like to see from Nobel laureates. It sounds... bad.
posted by Justinian at 10:51 AM on October 3, 2013 [7 favorites]

That's because we needed to win the 2010 election. Some people (Rachel Maddow) *cough* told progressives to stay home. This is what you get.

Some people *the President and the Democrats cheered on every step of the way by Ironmouth* passed what was at the time an extremely unpopular healthcare bill and so lost the election. They failed utterly to sell it and America hated them, not the fault of progressives who as usual showed up to vote Dem.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:52 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Some more details on Neugebauer's confrontation with the Ranger and the people of the United States standing up to his despicable grandstanding:

"I'm not ashamed," replied the ranger.

At that point, a crowd of onlookers got involved. "Ask those questions of the people who aren't passing the budget," shouted a voice from the crowd. "That's who you need to ask these questions to."

"This woman is doing her job, just like me," shouted another. "I'm a 30-year federal veteran -- I'm out of work."

The man, wearing a bicycle helmet, at this point was face to face with the congressman.

"Well, the reason you are is because Mr. Reid decided to shut down the government," responded Neugebauer, referring to the top Senate Democrat.

"No, it's because the government won't do its job and pass a budget," the bicyclist responded.

"The House did its job; it passed appropriations. The Senate hasn't," said another voice from the crowd.

Neugebauer walked away at that point.

posted by audi alteram partem at 10:52 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

An Old Witch Tells the President What to Do (via eschaton)
posted by ndfine at 10:55 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

/culled from local paper comments section
On the Rockville Patch's article yesterday about Obama's visit to Rockville, someone left this comment:

The Unicorn Prince taking full political advantage of the shutdown, but no leadership. Did you expect anything less from your Messiah?

What does that even mean? I googled "Unicorn Prince" but couldn't find anything that would clue me in. Is that even a thing?
posted by amarynth at 11:00 AM on October 3, 2013

Clearly he's an alicorn.
posted by Artw at 11:05 AM on October 3, 2013

Some people *the President and the Democrats cheered on every step of the way by Ironmouth* passed what was at the time an extremely unpopular healthcare bill and so lost the election. They failed utterly to sell it and America hated them, not the fault of progressives who as usual showed up to vote Dem.

I for one think it would be great if we could not have this argument for the 10,000th time. It exists, frozen in time, in tens if not hundreds of old, closed threads. If you would like to have it, please go open one of those up and read it there.
posted by Aizkolari at 11:07 AM on October 3, 2013 [12 favorites]

What does that even mean? I googled "Unicorn Prince" but couldn't find anything that would clue me in. Is that even a thing?

I'm guessing it's just an offhand way to talk about how his supporters fawn over him, but it should be noted that Unicorn-dom is (ironically) a bicameral representative democracy, there hasn't been a Unicorn prince since the Virgin wars.
posted by Think_Long at 11:09 AM on October 3, 2013 [7 favorites]

Don't start an Ironmouth derail, move on. Thanks.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:12 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

"but it should be noted that Unicorn-dom is (ironically) a bicameral representative democracy, there hasn't been a Unicorn prince since the Virgin wars."

For reasons I cannot articulate, this is the most perfect Metafilter comment I've ever read. I would like to take it to dinner at a nice place.
posted by lattiboy at 11:13 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Yes, please, can we skip that for now? I think I'm all done with the argument between Democratic purists and pragmatists.

If the Democrats really don't want this to happen again, they need, NEED to capture state legislatures. They need to capture governorships. They need to pass Iowa-like redistricting bills. The Democrats need to get into their ground game when it comes to things smaller than national, because this is where it ends up after a few years.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:14 AM on October 3, 2013 [8 favorites]

Metafilter: (ironically) a bicameral representative democracy, there hasn't been a Unicorn prince since the Virgin wars.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:15 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Yes, please, can we skip that for now? I think I'm all done with the argument between Democratic purists and pragmatists.

If the Democrats really don't want this to happen again, they need, NEED to capture state legislatures. They need to capture governorships. They need to pass Iowa-like redistricting bills. The Democrats need to get into their ground game when it comes to things smaller than national, because this is where it ends up after a few years.

the most important thing we can do now is contact our congressmen and women. every day. As a guy whose not allowed one, I have to rely on you folks to save us.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:22 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Dave Sim (of Cerebus fame), who knows something of crazy, wrote in "Church and State" something like "Its impossible to negotiate with a man whose humping your leg and howling at the moon."

As always, Mel Brooks envisioned this situation (NSFW).
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:22 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

(in this case, Bart would represent the Republicans)
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:23 AM on October 3, 2013

As a guy whose not allowed one, I have to rely on you folks to save us.

I hereby grant you honorary Congressional representation in my district and authorize you to speak on my behalf to Mike Fitzpatrick's office. You have to include a request to legalize weed in every call though.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:26 AM on October 3, 2013

Also, here's the interview where Bachmann talks about how happy the Republicans are about the shutdown.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:26 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

I wonder what China is making of all this. This is the kind of fail where you just want the person to get off the stage
posted by angrycat at 11:28 AM on October 3, 2013

NBC says "BREAKING: Capitol locked down after reports of shots fired outside building" but that's it. Let's hope it's just the usual rumormill nonsense.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:28 AM on October 3, 2013

As a guy whose not allowed one, I have to rely on you folks to save us.

I hereby grant you honorary Congressional representation in my district and authorize you to speak on my behalf to Mike Fitzpatrick's office. You have to include a request to legalize weed in every call though.

They literally screen out calls from other districts, I learned when I worked for an astroturfing firm. I can't actually do it for you. Believe me, I've tried. its up to you.

Have you called Mr. Fitzpatrick?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:28 AM on October 3, 2013

seems to be more than rumormill nonsense.
posted by Roommate at 11:29 AM on October 3, 2013

Breaking news, shots at capitol.
posted by daq at 11:29 AM on October 3, 2013

LukeRussert tweet: Police securing front, tourists told to run.
posted by Big_B at 11:29 AM on October 3, 2013

It's not rumormill nonsense; they've got Luke Russert on MSNBC talking about hearing the shots.
posted by Justinian at 11:29 AM on October 3, 2013

It's on CNN as well. Capitol is on lockdown.
posted by cmfletcher at 11:31 AM on October 3, 2013

I sincerely hope everyone is OK.

But the closure of the entire federal government is an invitation to lawlessness and security breaches.
posted by bearwife at 11:33 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

CNN reports Harry Reid said he was told there was one injury.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:34 AM on October 3, 2013

goddammit, don't these idiots know they're playing with fire?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:34 AM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

WHAT IN THE HOLY FUCK IS WRONG WITH US
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 11:35 AM on October 3, 2013 [9 favorites]

Have you called Mr. Fitzpatrick?

Yeah, every day, but he's the type who could use the extra push. The local paper had a cover pointing out how much pressure he is under on this yesterday. Break those moderates and this is over.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:35 AM on October 3, 2013

Have you called Mr. Fitzpatrick?

Yeah, every day, but he's the type who could use the extra push. The local paper had a cover pointing out how much pressure he is under on this yesterday. Break those moderates and this is over.

For sure true.

There are cop cars everywhere down here. I'm 7 blocks from the Capitol.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:38 AM on October 3, 2013

Yes, this is surely the first incident of violence at the Capitol. Oh wai
posted by entropicamericana at 11:39 AM on October 3, 2013

The U.S. Capitol police are reporting an officer has been injured.
posted by bearwife at 11:39 AM on October 3, 2013

NYTimes says someone was arrested.
posted by inertia at 11:40 AM on October 3, 2013

Here is the Washington Post liveblog for the shots fired. It only has one post at the moment, but I've found Post liveblogs to exceptionally good at handling breaking news type things.
posted by troika at 11:40 AM on October 3, 2013

Breaking news, shots at capitol.

This is starting to resemble every West Wing season-ending cliffhanger ever.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:41 AM on October 3, 2013 [6 favorites]

@mattyglesias: Capitol Police responding to shooting incident are working without pay today.

@mattyglesias: To be more precise, Capitol Police will have to skip their next paycheck if the shutdown extends: http://wapo.st/17xwBl6
posted by inigo2 at 11:43 AM on October 3, 2013 [7 favorites]

Chris Matthews used to be a Capitol Police Officer. I bet he has some choice words today.
posted by Justinian at 11:44 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Shooter in custody.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:49 AM on October 3, 2013

They literally screen out calls from other districts, I learned when I worked for an astroturfing firm. I can't actually do it for you. Believe me, I've tried. its up to you.

How does that even work? Do they ask for your address? Because with mobile phone numbers, an area code isn't a valid way to do that, and it seems pretty legit even to be calling from out of the area because you're travelling, etc.
posted by jacalata at 11:52 AM on October 3, 2013

Take annunciators, emergency supply kits and escape hoods

What on Earth is an 'annunciator' in this context?
posted by showbiz_liz at 11:53 AM on October 3, 2013

@ABC7: CAPITOL UPDATE: Reports say someone tried to ram White House gate w/ car, chase ensued, ended at Capitol Hill. Shots fired, unclear by who
posted by inigo2 at 11:53 AM on October 3, 2013

showbiz_liz: "What on Earth is an 'annunciator' in this context?"

Megaphone?
posted by Big_B at 11:55 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Let's not do this. Please.

(And by "this," I mean "speculate with zero information on the motives or the effect." Not while things are still developing.)
posted by Etrigan at 11:55 AM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

I'm also seeing twitter reports that a female suspect is dead.
posted by bearwife at 11:55 AM on October 3, 2013

Channel 4 is reporting this was some kind of car chase followed by a shootout. The police are looking at a wrecked black car close to the Capital building.
posted by smoothvirus at 11:55 AM on October 3, 2013

Rep. Tim Griffin, a Republican from Arkansas, seemed to blame Democrats for the shooting, tweeting, “Stop the violent rhetoric President Obama, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. #Disgusting” (via)
posted by inigo2 at 11:56 AM on October 3, 2013

Rep. Tim Griffin, a Republican from Arkansas, seemed to blame Democrats for the shooting, tweeting, “Stop the violent rhetoric President Obama, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. #Disgusting”

A Capitol Police officer sworn to protect this guy is injured, and that's what he has to say? What a class act.
posted by jetlagaddict at 11:57 AM on October 3, 2013 [11 favorites]

WHAT IS WRONG WITH EVERYTHING.
posted by inertia at 11:57 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Folks, please consider waiting until you have some sort of facts or information before commenting about what you think is going on here. Otherwise this thread gets ugly quickly and things aren't great already. Thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:57 AM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

"Moderates" and "GOP" are two terms that don't belong in the same sentence.

I don't know ...

"There are no moderates in the GOP anymore."
"All of the moderates have been purged from the GOP."
"When moderates try to run in GOP primaries, they are defeated by extremists."
"Why are there so few moderates in the GOP today?!?"
"Political pundits seem to think there are more moderates in the GOP than there really are."

And so on. ;)
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:58 AM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

inigo2: "Obama tweet: Tea Party extremists caused this #BoehnerShutdown."

All part of the #BreakingBoehner strategy.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 11:59 AM on October 3, 2013

Rep. Tim Griffin, a Republican from Arkansas, seemed to blame Democrats for the shooting, tweeting, “Stop the violent rhetoric President Obama, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. #Disgusting”

The Capitol Police are working without pay because of you and still defending your ass, you dirty pigfucker.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:00 PM on October 3, 2013 [21 favorites]

Real classy, Tim Griffin.
posted by Artw at 12:00 PM on October 3, 2013

Imgur link for Rep. Tim Griffin's tweet for posterity. I have no doubt this will get deleted and denied.
posted by cmfletcher at 12:00 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Josh Elliott from ABC is saying on twitter that a source indicates a female suspect is dead at the scene
posted by TwoWordReview at 12:01 PM on October 3, 2013

Well that is at least one stereotype out of the way, now about 6 dozen more to go...
posted by rosswald at 12:02 PM on October 3, 2013

That tweet is at 11:30 am, yeah? Before the shooting?
posted by angrycat at 12:02 PM on October 3, 2013

I'm across the street from a Federal Marshall's office. When the Navy Yard thing happened they all came charging out of their garage, sirens blaring. That did not happen today.
posted by smoothvirus at 12:02 PM on October 3, 2013

That image does not appear to be of the verified account for Tim Griffin.

Real one here
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:03 PM on October 3, 2013

That image does not appear to be of the verified account for Tim Griffin.

Real one here

That's his office's Twitter feed. The tweet apparently comes from his personal one.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:05 PM on October 3, 2013

OH never mind, he's got two accounts for some reason. Creep-o.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 12:05 PM on October 3, 2013

The real one retweets the other one a lot.
posted by vbfg at 12:05 PM on October 3, 2013

That tweet is at 11:30 am, yeah? Before the shooting? - no, that's a West Coast time stamp. DC time was 2:24, 2 minutes after he tweeted reports of shots at the Capital.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:05 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

He has retweeted his "personal" account tweets on his "official" account. The tweet in question is 40 minutes old at this time.
posted by cmfletcher at 12:06 PM on October 3, 2013

Ah thanks
posted by angrycat at 12:06 PM on October 3, 2013

WTOP is reporting that the lockdown at the Capitol has been lifted
posted by argonauta at 12:06 PM on October 3, 2013

“Stop the violent rhetoric President Obama, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. #Disgusting”

What fucking hypocrites.
posted by tyllwin at 12:07 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Tim Griffin‏
@TimGriffinAR2
42m
Stop the violent rhetoric President Obama, Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. #Disgusting

Tim Griffin‏
@TimGriffinAR2
44m
Gun shots outside the Capitol.

No way to spin this as anything but Rep. Griffin being a complete toolbag.
posted by Etrigan at 12:08 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

"Moderates" and "GOP" are two terms that don't belong in the same sentence.

The few old school moderate Republicans I know (there's still a bunch out here in Hawaii, including former governor Linda Lingle, when she's not on the national stage) tend to fall on the "fiscal conservative/socially liberal" side of the aisle. On the mainland, most of them would probably be blue dog Democrats.

I posted this in the other thread, but one of these moderate Republican friends ran for office (and lost) out here. We get along famously because we're on the same page on virtually every social issue (she's a big supporter of marriage equality, for example, and has fought against the local Republican party's homophobic stance). She's been furloughed and has written several scathing things about the Tea Party. Not a whiff of "Democrats fault" or "Obama's fault." She's crystal clear that this is entirely the fault of her own party kowtowing to the TPers.

Republican and Tea Party friends have tried to disabuse her of this notion on Facebook, and she's swatted their arguments aside with links, facts and evidence. Its been kind of glorious to watch.

Anyhow, there are sane Republicans out there who see exactly what is going on. Maybe not many, but they're there and some are pretty vocal. They just can't get elected to office.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:08 PM on October 3, 2013

Another imgur link to avoid timestamp confusion
posted by inigo2 at 12:08 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Oh, and also:
Tim Griffin‏
@TimGriffinAR2
42m
I am in House Cloakroom off the Floor.

So while he was still sheltering in place (not judging that -- it's not his job to run down the shooter), he's already attacking the Democrats. Tool. Bag.
posted by Etrigan at 12:09 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Gives new meaning to the phrase "lying on the floor."
posted by octobersurprise at 12:11 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Latest from ABC news.
posted by bearwife at 12:12 PM on October 3, 2013

Let the backpedaling begin

Tim Griffin is a terrible and inexcusable tragedy of a human being.
posted by cmfletcher at 12:14 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Politico: "Two people — including a child — were removed from the vehicle."
posted by zombieflanders at 12:15 PM on October 3, 2013

Let the backpedaling begin

Tim Griffin is a terrible and inexcusable tragedy of a human being.

Original tweet was in fact deleted, btw.
posted by inigo2 at 12:17 PM on October 3, 2013

Yeah.. the GOP seems to be doing a fair bit of backpedaling today. Boehner's spokesman kinda walked back John's comments about ignoring the Hastert rule regarding the debt ceiling.
posted by edgeways at 12:18 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Original tweet was in fact deleted, btw.

Sadly, this won't delete him from Congress. Probably getting attaboys as we speak.
posted by zombieflanders at 12:18 PM on October 3, 2013

I feel terrible for wondering this when people have been injured, but I'd like to know whether the shooter(s) were TP or not
posted by localhuman at 12:19 PM on October 3, 2013

"Two people — including a child — were removed from the vehicle."

That has already been redacted from the article.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 12:19 PM on October 3, 2013

Latest from ABC news.

Fuck, something about this image of the suburban-looking family with kid in stroller ducking and running made me tear up. This is where we are at. This will be what that kid thinks of whenever he sees the capitol building for the rest of his life. Jesus.
posted by Sreiny at 12:19 PM on October 3, 2013

Is the kid in the stroller ducking or is he asleep? Some kids can sleep through anything.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:20 PM on October 3, 2013

I feel terrible for wondering this when people have been injured, but I'd like to know whether the shooter(s) were TP or not

No. It sounds like (initial reporting, take with grain of salt) a woman was driving suspiciously near the White House. She hit a police car. A chase ensued, and she ended up shot. There was a child in the car. Sounds like a clusterfuck to me.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:21 PM on October 3, 2013

Is the kid in the stroller ducking or is he asleep? Some kids can sleep through anything.

Looks like that kid is asleep. I don't think it's physically possible to stay awake in those strollers. I miss being 4. Also, the Burger King crowns are adorable and makes the image all that sadder to me.
posted by Sreiny at 12:22 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

I just don't understand how the progressive movement can be so bad at selling itself, especially considering its prior successes. Things like Social Security, Clean Water Act, Equal Rights, and about a bajillion other things are pretty universally loved in this country, but it always seem that the next progressive idea on the horizon is an affront to our way of life.

Because there isn't a Progressive Movement that is advancing those and only those ideas. They're not even the realm of a single political party. When you look at only certain things as great ideas (which they are), you're leaving out all the other progressive ideas that aren't universally loved and are affronts to our way of life. "Change is good" is no more true than "change is bad."
posted by Etrigan at 12:23 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Y'all don't get it. First you gather this information, then you wait until the "official" story comes out, then any discrepancies between the original "on the fly" reporting and fact-checked/verified story are clear evidence of a conspiracy of some kind.
posted by symbioid at 12:23 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

"Two people — including a child — were removed from the vehicle."

That has already been redacted from the article.

Still in there for me, as of the 3:15pm EST update.
posted by Panjandrum at 12:24 PM on October 3, 2013

other progressive ideas that aren't universally loved and are affronts to our way of life.

and which ones are those?
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:24 PM on October 3, 2013

Griffin admits tweet out of emotion, not helpful.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:31 PM on October 3, 2013

> "and which ones are those?"

I will admit that Prohibition and eugenics both leap to mind.
posted by kyrademon at 12:33 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

The country was ready to elect a black president. It was not ready for a black president.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:33 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

This is where we are at.

A cop who might not get his next paycheck running toward the sound of gunshots and a family of tourists visiting a shuttered Capitol running from them. Someone should turn it into a painting for our very own Course of Empire.
posted by octobersurprise at 12:33 PM on October 3, 2013 [13 favorites]

other progressive ideas that aren't universally loved and are affronts to our way of life.

and which ones are those?

Prohibition, eugenics and forced cultural assimilation of immigrants, back in the Progressive Era of the late 1800s and early 1900s. Franklin Roosevelt advocated a flat maximum net income of $25,000 per year. Busing of schoolchildren, more recently.

As I say, the problem is that picking out certain things and saying, "See, progressives did these things that people love, so I don't understand why people don't love all progressive things," you're making a fairly large leap of logic. It's like asking why, if everyone loved The Godfather, why didn't they like The Godfather Part III?
posted by Etrigan at 12:33 PM on October 3, 2013

Picture of a police car involved in the incident. Damn........
posted by inigo2 at 12:34 PM on October 3, 2013

The kid with the crown made it inside!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:36 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Prohibition, eugenics and forced cultural assimilation of immigrants, back in the Progressive Era of the late 1800s and early 1900s.

don't forget more horse posts in front of businesses
posted by pyramid termite at 12:37 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

inigo2's image link is pretty damn symbolic.
posted by symbioid at 12:37 PM on October 3, 2013

NBC News is saying female suspect in custody, not dead.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:38 PM on October 3, 2013

rosswald didn't say people should love all things progressive. He is talking about the demonization of all things progressive and why it is often successful.
posted by soelo at 12:39 PM on October 3, 2013

Griffin admits tweet out of emotion, not helpful.

Wake me when the headline reads: GOP admits obstructivist tactics out of emotion, not helpful.
posted by Atom Eyes at 12:39 PM on October 3, 2013 [8 favorites]

Just saw that. Should help figure out what was going on.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:40 PM on October 3, 2013

It's like asking why everyone loved The Godfather, so why didn't they like The Godfather Part III?

Not an unfair point, but I feel like you could drop congressional speeches railing against the New Deal into an anti 'Obamacare' ad. and the date would be the only clue
posted by rosswald at 12:41 PM on October 3, 2013

Uh, right below the headline, the NBC news article says "The suspect — who had a child in the car — was shot and killed"
posted by Ouisch at 12:41 PM on October 3, 2013

Local news stations were showing footage of a small african american toddler who was being reported as the child removed from the back of the suspect's car. She appeared to be upset and crying as she was carried by police officers. Now another station is saying the girl was less than a year old, so not sure it was the same toddler.
posted by onlyconnect at 12:41 PM on October 3, 2013

raysmj: "Boehner's word is worth nothing, at this point. He has no power over his own caucus."

He has the power to bring the Senate CR to the floor at any time. His ability to whip the rest of the party is irrelevant as long as 17 (or is it 18?) Republicans are willing to show a bit of leadership and do what needs to be done. Given that the requisite number have stated publicly that they would indeed do that, it's reasonable to conclude that the only person keeping the government shut down at this point is John Boehner.
posted by wierdo at 12:42 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Uh, right below the headline, the NBC news article says "The suspect — who had a child in the car — was shot and killed"

Must've posted it right before the edit. They were definitely saying in custody.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:43 PM on October 3, 2013

John boehner will lose his speakership if he passes a CR with 18 GOP votes.
posted by empath at 12:44 PM on October 3, 2013

"No pay for Congress during the shutdown" petition at MoveOn.org.
posted by Rykey at 12:45 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

He would probably get more that 18 if he put it on the floor.
posted by localhuman at 12:45 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

rosswald didn't say people should love all things progressive. He is talking about the demonization of all things progressive and why it is often successful.

"Things like Social Security, Clean Water Act, Equal Rights, and about a bajillion other things are pretty universally loved in this country, but it always seem that the next progressive idea on the horizon is an affront to our way of life" definitely draws a line saying "People like this, why do they hate that?" It's because this and that are different things, and you can't lean on the one as support for the other all by itself.
posted by Etrigan at 12:46 PM on October 3, 2013

If he brings the CR to the floor he'll probably lose the speaker's post and face a primary challenge next year. As was mentioned by someone somewhere in this thread or some link: He's gotta chose between 1 man keeping his job or allowing 800,000 people to actually do their jobs.
posted by cmfletcher at 12:46 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Please don't be black, please don't be black....
posted by RedShrek at 12:46 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Boehner: Obama Stubbornly Refusing To End Crisis I Created

The Borowitz report has been on fire this week.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:46 PM on October 3, 2013

Boehner can lose his speakership...or what? What scenario allows him to resolve this and still keep his speakership? And if it doesn't get resolved, we end up in semi-permanent crisis?

I would feel sorry for such a bad choice, but he got himself here. Frankly I don't see why he's fighting so hard. He's a rich guy, he could resolve it, lose the speakership, and spend the rest of his life fishing if he wanted. Fishing should be looking pretty good these days.
posted by emjaybee at 12:47 PM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

Frankly I don't see why he's fighting so hard.
The Ancients knew why, and even had a name for it: hubris
posted by aramaic at 12:49 PM on October 3, 2013 [8 favorites]

He's gotta chose between 1 man keeping his job or allowing 800,000 people to actually do their jobs.

to put it another way, he's got to choose between being a career politician or a statesman
posted by pyramid termite at 12:49 PM on October 3, 2013 [6 favorites]

Every time someone mentions that Congress should lose their pay, I picture the Arkansas representative from West Wing who lived in his office muttering to himself "I guess I'm eating ramen for a few days..."
posted by DynamiteToast at 12:50 PM on October 3, 2013

Boehner can lose his speakership...or what? What scenario allows him to resolve this and still keep his speakership? And if it doesn't get resolved, we end up in semi-permanent crisis?

I don't see a way out for him. And there are a lot more than 800,000 jobs at stake. The entire world economy is at risk right now because of his cowardice.
posted by empath at 12:50 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Probably getting attaboys as we speak.

Way I read it, the Republicans are concentrating fully on not looking like the bad guys right now. Ten gets you twenty he got a full-on Malcolm Tucker.
posted by forgetful snow at 12:52 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

He could also resolve it and keep the Speakership if a handful of Republicans back him and all the Dems want to keep the guy who they know will eventually fold. It's a majority vote for a Speaker change. Not to say that's likely, but he's not just the devil the Dems know, he's the devil they know is nothing more than a guy in a devil costume like some Scooby Doo villain.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:53 PM on October 3, 2013

Etrigan - when this is from the same people who brought you that, it is usually a selling point. More like asking if lots of people liked The Godfather, then why is no one even buying tickets to see The Godfather III. Directors who make good movies and then bad ones can go on to make another good one.
posted by soelo at 12:56 PM on October 3, 2013

Another pic of that police car, and firefighters rescuing a police officer from it.
posted by inigo2 at 12:56 PM on October 3, 2013

Capitol Police are having a press conference at 4:15. Hoping for it to end with "Oh, and Tim Griffin can go fuck himself."
posted by zombieflanders at 12:56 PM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

rosswald: "It's like asking why everyone loved The Godfather, so why didn't they like The Godfather Part III?

Not an unfair point, but I feel like you could drop congressional speeches railing against the New Deal into an anti 'Obamacare' ad. and the date would be the only clue"

Or Reagan's 1961 AMA sponsored screed against "Socialized Medicine"
posted by symbioid at 12:57 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I'm reading reports that there was no firearm found. Which would mean that the Capitol police gunned down an unarmed mother in front of her child.
posted by empath at 12:58 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

a car can be counted as a deadly weapon
posted by pyramid termite at 1:01 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Steakums: Interesting point on Democrats supporting Boehner for speaker and only needing those 18 Republican votes but you can't really count on a uniform vote of the Democratic party for that one and the RNC will crack down and want someone they could offer up in 2016 in that seat if Boehner has "lost the base".

Say what you will about house Republicans but they're almost uniformly opportunistic and crave the spotlight that a position like speaker offers.
posted by cmfletcher at 1:01 PM on October 3, 2013

A car could very well be considered a deadly weapon if used in a threatening manner.
posted by RedShrek at 1:01 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

It's sounding a lot more like a drunk driver in the wrong place type scenario than a terrorism scenario. Just speculation there, but she was fleeing from police and putting a lot of people in danger so if they feel they had to use force to stop the car I'm going to give them the initial benefit of the doubt on that until more facts come out.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:02 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

That's what I was wondering. The officer was injured in the crash, not shot, but the NBC (I think) story said that she began shooting after police cars had cornered her. Also AP tweeted about 13 mins ago that she was in custody, not dead. Best wait for the press conference either way, too many conflicting reports right now.
posted by TwoWordReview at 1:02 PM on October 3, 2013

empath: "I'm reading reports that there was no firearm found. Which would mean that the Capitol police gunned down an unarmed mother in front of her child."

With all due respect, she was armed with a vehicle capable of killing people by running them over. I'm all for cops using the minimal amount of force required to apprehend a suspect, but I don't think the cops should have to put themselves in more danger by letting them run into their own vehicles, or perhaps run down pedestrians, accidentally or on purpose.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:02 PM on October 3, 2013

OK - so, was she the shooter or is the shooter still at large?
posted by symbioid at 1:03 PM on October 3, 2013

Often times, initial information tends to be incorrect.
posted by RedShrek at 1:03 PM on October 3, 2013

Let me put it this way: Were there shots fired in the first place?
posted by symbioid at 1:04 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Well that's just it. The initial reports were of shots fired outside the capitol. It could very well be just the police that had fired shots and there is/was no 'shooter'
posted by TwoWordReview at 1:04 PM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

It's sounding a lot more like a drunk driver in the wrong place type scenario than a terrorism scenario.

Most of the reports I've read have the event starting with her trying to ram a security gate near the White House, so I'm not sure it's simply a drunk driver.

That said, yeah, lot of conflicting reports out there.
posted by inigo2 at 1:04 PM on October 3, 2013

Let me put it this way: Were there shots fired in the first place?

It does not appear so.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:04 PM on October 3, 2013

Either she was armed or the police shot one of their own guys since an officer was medevaced in a helicopter which landed directly on the Mall.
posted by Justinian at 1:04 PM on October 3, 2013

Take a look at the photo of the crushed police car, Justinian.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:05 PM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

A few months ago in NYC a "mass shooting" turned out to be one shooting by a civilian and then six people shot by policemen afterwards.
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:05 PM on October 3, 2013 [14 favorites]

MrMoonPie: "Best thing from Twitter:

Can I burn down your house?
No ...."

So this is my congressperson on the floor of the house.
posted by octothorpe at 1:06 PM on October 3, 2013 [13 favorites]

Crowdsourced talking points, awesome! (not really)
posted by symbioid at 1:07 PM on October 3, 2013

So this is my congressperson on the floor of the house.

Cool! I worked for Mike Doyle back in 95-96, he's good people.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:09 PM on October 3, 2013

Ooo I missed the car photo in the fast moving thread. Yeah, that would explain the medevac.
posted by Justinian at 1:12 PM on October 3, 2013

(Apologies for the snark, btw... the rest of his comments were good. I guess I fear an endless debate of internet-forwarded emails/facebook posts between liberals and conservatives).

"I received an email that said the following, and I quote...
'FWD: FWD: FWD: LOL - SO TRUE AND FUNNY ABOUT COMMIE SCUM'"
posted by symbioid at 1:13 PM on October 3, 2013

Any link to report she did not have a weapon?
posted by Ironmouth at 1:13 PM on October 3, 2013

The reports I'm watching are not saying that, exactly, but they're absolutely walking back in a very careful manner any implication that she was a "shooter". So I think that's pretty telling. We'll see when the cops have their press conference.
posted by Justinian at 1:15 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

The full story from Talking Points Memo.
posted by lattiboy at 1:16 PM on October 3, 2013

Now, if we could get back to something else....
posted by lattiboy at 1:17 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

That's exactly the same story we've already got, not a "full story".
posted by Justinian at 1:21 PM on October 3, 2013

If this is the car that "rammed" a barricade, how did that police car end up the way it did?
posted by Big_B at 1:23 PM on October 3, 2013

It probably lost control during a chase.
posted by Justinian at 1:24 PM on October 3, 2013

Uh, is there some reason to believe that was the car involved? The caption says "a black car".
posted by Justinian at 1:25 PM on October 3, 2013

Yah it looks like it rolled to me.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:25 PM on October 3, 2013

What state is the license plate? Connecticut? Rhode Island?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 1:25 PM on October 3, 2013

Kind of incredibly, I work at 14th and Penn and had no idea anything was going on outside until it popped up in this thread.
posted by troika at 1:27 PM on October 3, 2013

Big_B: "If this is the car that "rammed" a barricade, how did that police car end up the way it did?"

That looks like an Infiniti badge, not a Lexus.
posted by boo_radley at 1:31 PM on October 3, 2013

I think that light blue fade is CT?
posted by elizardbits at 1:33 PM on October 3, 2013

Yeah, definitely CT plates. It's probably not the same car, but I was running an errand on my bike this morning near the House buildings on the south side of the Capitol and remember a dark car with Connecticut plates driving like an ass. Freaky.

Also it would be nice if two weeks would go by without a national-news-level shooting going down in my neighborhood.

Getting back on topic, I saw that the House has reconvened after a moment of silence.
posted by exogenous at 1:35 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Oh wow, CNN is showing video of the whole thing starting. They have the car stopped and surround it with guns drawn. The car backs into a police car behind it and drives off, then they shoot and other cars chase.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:36 PM on October 3, 2013

Also, the front driverside corner looks like it took some damage, most likely directly rubbing against a cop car attempting a PIT maneuver. The bad thing about a PIT, though, is that if done in correctly, you can end up losing control of your own vehicle, which looks to be the case. Or even better, it could be that the driver of the black car was able to PIT the demolished police vehicle by pulling a PIT on them.

More info: PIT Maneuver
posted by daq at 1:36 PM on October 3, 2013

To get back to Republicantics...

Rep. Randy Neugebauer scolds Park Ranger for deigning to follow the law and not open a park to vets.

Asshole.
posted by symbioid at 1:39 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Ok, having seen the video that does look like the car.
posted by Justinian at 1:40 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Links to the video?
posted by RedShrek at 1:41 PM on October 3, 2013

Cop hit a bollard. Live video, no link yet.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:41 PM on October 3, 2013

Oh wow, now seeing the woman try to ram multiple police officers who had guns drawn. She was out of control personally. All live video, no links. NBC 4 DC.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:44 PM on October 3, 2013

RedShrek: "Links to the video?"

There's a clip directly on cnn's homepage.
posted by boo_radley at 1:45 PM on October 3, 2013

Link to NBC 4 DC.
It's live but it seems unlikely that they'll stop replaying the video for a while in case you missed it.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 1:50 PM on October 3, 2013

Full video including what looks like the start of the incident up at TPM.
posted by zombieflanders at 1:51 PM on October 3, 2013

B.J. Campbell, 69, and his wife Susan of Oregon, who were touring Washington, said they saw a black Infiniti driven by a woman year through the security checkpoint at 15th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW heading west on Pennsylvania Avenue. She went about 20 yards before rapids turning the car around at the concrete security barriers.

“The Secret Service guy was just having a cow,” B.J. said. “Yelling at her and banging on the car.”

The Secret Service guys pulled a black metal gate into her path and she slowed to try to go around it, they said. But the agent moved the gate in front of her again. At that point “she just gunned it,” B.J. said. “She ran the barricade down and the guy; knocked him up onto her hood. He rolled off into the street and she tore off down Pennsylvania Avenue.”

The whole thing lasted about 20 seconds, they said.

posted by Ironmouth at 1:54 PM on October 3, 2013

Full video including what looks like the start of the incident up at TPM.

Actually, that is seconds before the end. The incident began nearly a mile away at the White House. That's right in front of the Capitol.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:55 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

And here comes Pat Collins. Wait for the voice.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:00 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

On a side note, looking at TPM, I see that Cantor is telling the GOP to hold fast because he feels that the Democrats are going to cave in this fight. I think I agree with him.
posted by RedShrek at 2:00 PM on October 3, 2013

Woman driving now reported as a thirty-four year old woman from Stamford CT with a history of mental health issues.
posted by onlyconnect at 2:01 PM on October 3, 2013

I miss Pat Collins.
posted by RedShrek at 2:01 PM on October 3, 2013

On a side note, looking at TPM, I see that Cantor is telling the GOP to hold fast because he feels that the Democrats are going to cave in this fight. I think I agree with him.

Conversely: John Boehner gives away the game (a bit)

[W]hat seems to be going on here is that this is Boehner’s “big give,” as one Dem aide put it to me sarcastically. Boehner is signaling flexibility in the sense that he just may be willing to give Dems the “clean” debt ceiling increase they want, but only in a larger context where Dems will be expected to make concessions in exchange for keeping the government open. In other words, whether or not Boehner ends up being open to a “clean” debt ceiling vote, the larger picture will remain that Democrats will still have to hand over a series of concessions in exchange for GOP cooperation in returning us to something resembling governing normalcy.

So in one sense, this isn’t much of a concession. On the other hand, the mere fact that Boehner sees a need to telegraph nominal flexibility to begin with could be a key tell. With Obama warning that Wall Street should take the possibility of default seriously, Boehner seems to see a need to underscore, again, that he will not allow default under any circumstances, and that keeping alive any doubts about this is politically untenable. Dems will look at this and probably only be even more encouraged to hold to a hard line on both the government shutdown and the debt limit. Boehner’s trial balloon is also useful in the sense that it makes the glaring absurdity that’s always been at the heart of his position even more glaringly absurd.

posted by zombieflanders at 2:04 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

No identification and no weapons found in the vehicle.
posted by onlyconnect at 2:08 PM on October 3, 2013

Okay, ABC News is reporting that there was no identification in the car, and they're not reporting the name in case they're wrong....but they already know for sure she had a history of mental health issues. How do they know that already without even having confirmation of her name?
posted by troika at 2:09 PM on October 3, 2013

Okay, ABC news is reporting that there was no identification in the car, and they're not reporting the name in case they're wrong....but they already know for sure she had a history of mental health issues? How do they know that already without even having confirmation of her name?

The FBI and Secret Service already know who it is and are apparently searching her house. If I had to guess, the same news orgs who have screwed the ID thing up several times in the last few months are being extremely cautious.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:12 PM on October 3, 2013

troika: "Okay, ABC news is reporting that there was no identification in the car, and they're not reporting the name in case they're wrong....but they already know for sure she had a history of mental health issues. How do they know that already without even having confirmation of her name?"

Conjecture: The person whose name they have has a history of mental illness.
posted by boo_radley at 2:12 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

It's not just being cautious, if she has family they have to notify next of kin.
posted by Justinian at 2:18 PM on October 3, 2013

Stamford Police haven't used twitter since 2010 but the Stamford Advocate may be worth paying attention to.
posted by jessamyn at 2:18 PM on October 3, 2013

So yeah back to the topic at hand, several people in my state government office that review work going on at federal facilities just got told to stop work. Yay.
posted by Big_B at 2:28 PM on October 3, 2013

Some new pictures. Sorry about linking a site called Hollywood Life.
posted by SkylitDrawl at 2:31 PM on October 3, 2013

NBC anchor just said that the child in the car was injured.
posted by enn at 2:33 PM on October 3, 2013

Tea Party darling Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC): "The thing of it is, I need my paycheck. That is the bottom line."

Ellmers has an extensive history of signing onto The Crazy/Stupid™.
posted by zombieflanders at 2:33 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

The thing with the woman in the car is begining to seem a bit like irrelevant rubbernecking now, maybe we should drop it?
posted by Artw at 2:33 PM on October 3, 2013 [18 favorites]

Fox a-hole of the day (and that's going some) "these people are living off our backs" - "hey, I'm fed up with this and I don't miss you when you're on furlough"

awww, poor guy's getting tired of getting screwed.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:37 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

NBC4 had video of the heavily damaged police car getting wrecked. It hit a retractable barricade on Constitoution as the barricade was being raised.

As for Mr Varney I have felt for some time this whole thing is about revenge and a motivation by some on the far right to make goddamn sure that DC is turned into the next Detroit and its residents (including the the MD and VA subrubs) ruined.
posted by smoothvirus at 2:49 PM on October 3, 2013

[Wisconsin] State DNR refuses federal directive to close some popular parks
posted by desjardins at 2:49 PM on October 3, 2013

What does that even mean? I googled "Unicorn Prince" but couldn't find anything that would clue me in. Is that even a thing?

Freeper-speak, one of the kinder epithets given to Obama. I think it's kind of a meld of the "he thinks he's royalty but it's all in his mind, so imaginary royalty" and the "unicorn candy" (handouts) that he doles out to his subjects. Pathetic that I know this, yes.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:51 PM on October 3, 2013

I'm pretty sure they picked it up from the ironic pictures of Obama riding a unicorn that liberals tend to post. Possibly because they think we meant them as a sincere tribute. I like this one!
posted by emjaybee at 2:54 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Varney (the Vampire) wants to "punish" federal employees? Between the likes of him and Thiessen it won't be long before they're straight out calling for whippings and hangings.

(I really did wonder once how the Russians could believe everything Pravda told them. I was young and naive.)
posted by octobersurprise at 2:54 PM on October 3, 2013 [6 favorites]

What does that even mean? I googled "Unicorn Prince" but couldn't find anything that would clue me in. Is that even a thing?

This along with the "Emperor" and "King" thing I mentioned above which started the discussion are all monikers used to reiterate that the speaker thinks his presidency is illegitimate. It's a common thing. I have an older relative that every.single.time his name comes out of her mouth it is preceded by one of these. It's maddening.
posted by Big_B at 2:58 PM on October 3, 2013

Tea Party darling Rep. Renee Ellmers (R-NC): "The thing of it is, I need my paycheck. That is the bottom line."

Good thing that doesn't apply to any other federal workers, including her own fucking staffers, living high on their salaries that are less than 20% of hers. I'm really, really impressed with the self-restraint of anyone who can get within arms reach of this woman without slapping her. I don't think I could do it.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 3:03 PM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

How's her healthcare?
posted by Artw at 3:04 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

The thing with the woman in the car is begining to seem a bit like irrelevant rubbernecking now, maybe we should drop it?

I don't know, it's possible you are right, but I live in Arlington VA and this event seems like part of the shutdown story to me. A woman seems to try to essentially attack the white house, then the Capitol, with her car, then gets gunned down while her presumptive daughter watches from the back seat after she probably helps to illustrate the failure of our health care system, while our legislators sit on their hands a few dozen yards away. I wouldn't call it irrelevant, myself, but maybe I feel it more because I live right here and members of my family have been furloughed.
posted by onlyconnect at 3:09 PM on October 3, 2013 [6 favorites]

They're saying its a 34 year old African American resident of Stamford, Connecticut.
posted by Justinian at 3:21 PM on October 3, 2013

GOP governors learn to live Obamacare.
posted by Artw at 3:21 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I've been streaming C-SPAN most of the day and Louie Gohmert has been talking for awhile now and everything coming out of his mouth is just the most nonsense filled crap I've ever heard. We apparently live on completely different planes of existence.
posted by Arbac at 3:44 PM on October 3, 2013

Louie Gohmert has been talking for awhile now and everything coming out of his mouth is just the most nonsense filled crap I've ever heard.

Do not adjust your television.
posted by Rykey at 3:48 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Really? You don't find him captivatizzzzzzzzzzzzz.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:55 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Government Employees Responsible For Saving Us From Hurricanes Are Working For No Pay
posted by Artw at 4:14 PM on October 3, 2013

ZOMG NPR's collage of Fox News. It's like The Daily Show without the catharsis of humor
posted by angrycat at 4:15 PM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

Just told by a senior senate staffer who I trust that this is Boehner's retreat from Moscow and that the Dems in the Senate are really united on this. Got a big thumbs up. "They fucked up bad" he said of the GOP.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:31 PM on October 3, 2013 [8 favorites]

A year and a half old, but timely: I work for Uncle Sam, and I’m proud of it
posted by exogenous at 4:59 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I half wonder if after this started there is now a political play from the Democrats underway to crush Boehner and ferment as much acrimony within the Republican party as possible. IF Boehner finally presents the clean bill and then faces open revolt it's going to force the party as a whole to deal with the Tea Partiers one way or the other, fully embrace it and alienate a handful of House members and many Senate members, or... who knows? In the long run the question has to be forced, how much political power does the minority hold over the majority. This may be that time, as orchestrated by the Democrats. or, more likely, it's just one big cock-up and everyone is flying blind.
posted by edgeways at 5:04 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

"fine, then - if you won't negotiate over burning down your house, i'll burn down MY OWN!!"
posted by pyramid termite at 5:09 PM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

Like I said earlier, Obama's play here is to split the Republican party. Obama always plays the long game. You see the same pattern play out in his opponents every time. It was the same with John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Mitt Romney: They don't know they're backed into a corner and beaten until it's way too late. Now the key is to infuriate the Tea Party against the saner Republicans as much as possible.
posted by vibrotronica at 5:12 PM on October 3, 2013

The Decline and Fall of the Republican Party
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:13 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Another appropriate quote:

Senator? You can have my answer now, if you like. My final offer is this: nothing. Not even the fee for the gaming license, which I would appreciate if you would put up personally.

posted by Justinian at 5:14 PM on October 3, 2013 [6 favorites]

inigo2: "To be more precise, Capitol Police will have to skip their next paycheck if the shutdown extends: "

Are they working for free or is their pay being deferred?
posted by Mitheral at 5:16 PM on October 3, 2013

I don't know if anyone else noticed, but in Obama's speech today, he brought up the word "deadbeats," as in, if we don't pay our bills, we are deadbeats (throwing the GOP's words back at them). And how Kentucky ordered up health care plans ("not like they voted for me"). So in effect he was calling the GOP deadbeats if they don't vote for the debt ceiling to go through. I thought it was a pretty good speech. I'm sticking by him and I think he will see this through. GOBAMA!
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 5:18 PM on October 3, 2013

The last time I was in Boston the USS Constitution was closed to tours because the crew was out on a qualification cruise. This time? Government shutdown'd.

Thanks, Obama.
posted by Steely-eyed Missile Man at 5:22 PM on October 3, 2013

It is sounding more and more like woman took wrong turn, paniced and was killed by an overly agressive police response.
posted by humanfont at 5:26 PM on October 3, 2013

I was hoping for the phrase, "deadbeat Congress." But I also knew Obama would never go that far in a speech.
posted by meese at 5:28 PM on October 3, 2013

From Golden Eternity's link:

The Tea Party was born because the Republican Party would not stand up for real Americans. The Republican Party was born because the Whig Party would not stand up for all Americans.

Those two sentences imply different ideals, you boob.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:29 PM on October 3, 2013 [6 favorites]

Are they working for free or is their pay being deferred?

All federal employees currently working because they are "excepted"* (which means they get an exception from furlough) will eventually receive a paycheck. But because the federal employees who process paychecks are furloughed, those paychecks will be delayed. I believe tomorrow is the end of a pay period and it may be that the payroll workers were able to process paychecks for this pay period for excepted employees, so they may get a paycheck next Friday. But after that, if the shutdown continues, they won't get paid until the shutdown is over and payroll employees are back.

Note that those employees WILL be paid as part of whatever appropriations bill Congress passes -- they have to be paid under the aforementioned Anti-Deficiency Act. Furloughed employees have in the past also gotten back pay for days not worked while on furlough, but the received wisdom this time has been that there's no way Congress will authorize back pay for work not done. That seems to be changing, though -- I'll see if I can find the link, but earlier this afternoon, I saw a headline that suggested Republicans are coming around on this.

*This is contrast to "exempted" employees who are employees who are paid by some funding source other than appropriations, like fees (but in some cases, even where an agency is funded by fees, those fees are deposited to the Treasury and still must be appropriated back to the agency).
posted by devinemissk at 5:31 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Just read Golden Eternity's latest link.

That any member of the Tea Party believes splitting off from the Republican Party is a good idea is patently absurd. Spitting themselves off reduces their legislative power to almost nothing. They will have to either caucus with and compromise with the current Republican Party or they won't even have the power to get the slightest bit of their agenda done. It would be a phenomenally stupid move that would top even threatening to crash the world's economy's stupidity.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:31 PM on October 3, 2013

It would be a phenomenally stupid move that would top even threatening to crash the world's economy's stupidity.

You know the Tea Party—always going for the gusto!
posted by vibrotronica at 5:33 PM on October 3, 2013 [7 favorites]

To put it another way, I double dog dare them.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:33 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

They don't know they aren't the majority.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:34 PM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

That's funny, they probably don't know how to spell the word "majority" either.
posted by Justinian at 5:36 PM on October 3, 2013

That any member of the Tea Party believes splitting off from the Republican Party is a good idea is patently absurd.

Don't listen, Tea Party! Splitting off is a marvelous idea!
posted by Rykey at 5:37 PM on October 3, 2013 [11 favorites]

The argument in Golden Eternity's link (by Justin Phillips, lets give credit where credit is due) will kill the Republican Party either way, and resulting in the Tea Party as a permanent minority party comparable to, I don't know, Golden Dawn?
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:37 PM on October 3, 2013

The idea that the Republic could well be brought low by a small gang of buffoons is app -

ropriate, actually
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:40 PM on October 3, 2013

That's funny, they probably don't know how to spell the word "majority" either.
posted by Justinian at 9:36 AM on October 4 [+] [!]

Sure they do: W-A-S-P.
posted by DoctorFedora at 5:43 PM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

On the other hand right now may be the perfect time for a split, for the Rs. Yeah, they'll likely lose in the mid terms, but it gives them another 2 years to recover and run non extremists for presdident and stand a good shot at it.
posted by edgeways at 5:44 PM on October 3, 2013

Spitting themselves off reduces their legislative power to almost nothing.

ohpleaseohpleaseohplease
posted by rtha at 5:48 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

The fact that Obama is black exacerbates the situation; it does not cause the situation. What astounds me is the idea that the Tea Party, were it to make it to 2016 remaining as a significant player, would suddenly disappear if, for example, Hillary Clinton were elected. Or any other Democrat you'd care to name with the possible exception of Zell Miller.

These people didn't start going crazy when a black man was elected. They started going crazier. They've been ramped up on the crazy since the early 1990s at the least.
posted by Flunkie at 5:58 PM on October 3, 2013 [16 favorites]

That people continue to think the root of Tea Party motivation goes beyond "fuck the uppity black president thinking he tells us what to do" astounds me.

Oh, come on. The Tea Party uses that racial animosity instrumentally to get people angry and get them to the polls; its real purpose is to put those uncountable millions of dollars that now constitute speech to good use in deregulating finance even further (along with everything else) and trying to privatize anything and everything of value. Don't confuse the Tea Party's tactics with its goals.
posted by clockzero at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Seriously, what? The 1990's? I was there and there was no "OMG Blackie" sort of stuff going on then. It was "OMG Bill got a blow job!" And even that was stretch. Now it's pretty blatant racism.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 6:07 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I remember specifically when my dad went kind of nuts for this proto-Tea Party horseshit. It was the 90s. Wasn't about blowjobs. It was about everything the Clinton's did being some kind of vast conspiracy. He was illegitimate and a liar and a womanizer and Hillary was for sure a lesbian and they killed a guy, and stole money from drug dealers, and....

Oh god. The Vince Foster articles he wanted me to read (at 13), the endless WSJ Editorials this brilliant man and Harvard/Boston College MBA swallowed up. The Limbaugh he listened to. Made me an annoying shit of a conservative up until 21 or so. I loved the man, and I couldn't have asked for a better dad, but when I think back to what a fucking loon he was when it came to politics I really do get a kind of hollowness to my memories of him.

This "straight talk", quasi-factual, condescending shit is basically catnip for 50+ year old white guys. It provides a sense of shared fear, solidarity, a nicely packaged "other", and (very) occasionally a valid point. The fact that the guys spewing it almost always look like the people being spewed to only increases the effectiveness.

Yeah, Obama's race has made things more repellent, but this is not new.
posted by lattiboy at 6:10 PM on October 3, 2013 [37 favorites]

I hear you, lattiboy, but I still don't think it was as blatant as it is now. I disagree. I think Obama's race has a lot to do with it because of his agenda, which is healthcare for all, and is seen as giving in to those on "the dole." Which are poor black people in their minds. Whatever it was in Clinton's era, it is 1 million times magnified now.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

the spotlight

i remember seeing copies of this in the early 80s - and god only knows what was going on before that

the political ancestors of the tea party go back a long, long time - perhaps even as far as the know-nothing party of the 1850s
posted by pyramid termite at 6:16 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Seriously, what? The 1990's? I was there and there was no "OMG Blackie" sort of stuff going on then. It was "OMG Bill got a blow job!" And even that was stretch. Now it's pretty blatant racism.

I was also there;
There was in fact blatant racism;
Ignoring that, my point was not related to whether or not there was blatant racism;
My point was that these people have been crazy for a long time, and the fact that Obama is black exacerbates their craziness but is not the sole driving factor in their craziness.

posted by Flunkie at 6:18 PM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

Flunkie you're conflating the Tea Party movement with the general overarching concept of hard right nutjobs.

he's not conflating those - they've managed to conflate themselves into a mass political movement that has finally gotten a foot in the door after decades of trying

the only way the tea party is going away is if they lose a lot of ground electorially - and maybe not even then

it's a good, pithy brand for that kind of political movement - it's effective and they're not going to let it go just because someone else becomes president
posted by pyramid termite at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I think the big difference now is they use nastier rhetoric but there's less, y'know, McVeighs, Nicholses, Rudolphs. Militias are less of a thing or at least less of a public thing. They talk like it's the same, but the Tea Party is the 90's reactionary right after moving to the suburbs.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:26 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Of course there was racism back then, but no one questioned Bill Clinton's birth, did they? I mean, this stuff has taken new heights. It's not like, OMG Democrats this, it's OMG we can't deal with a Black President. Must destroy at all costs. And at all costs is not something this country can afford.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2013

Arbac: "I've been streaming C-SPAN most of the day and Louie Gohmert has been talking for awhile now and everything coming out of his mouth is just the most nonsense filled crap I've ever heard. We apparently live on completely different planes of existence."

He's the guy who honestly posits Terror Babies... It's so amazingly ... I can't even think of the word, coherently insane?

1) You got your fear of "anchor babies" and immigrants.
2) You've got Muslims (note, I don't even say "Radical" because to this guy, ALL Muslims are evil and shit).
3) You've got Madrasas and infiltrations at the highest level of Government by a Kenyan Muslim who trained at an Indonesian Madrasa...

PUT EM IN A BLENDER... BZZZZZZZZZT

Instant Terror Baby Puree!

The Muslims come and have a baby on American soil (anchor baby), they then take that baby and go to a terror training camp (because, of course, that's what all Madrasas are, right/), and then they come back when they're of age, and BOOM! TERROR! JUST LIKE THAT!

How do you even get taken seriously being part of the leadership of a country when you're that orthogonal to reality? Whatever it, it's America. FUCK YEAH!
posted by symbioid at 6:30 PM on October 3, 2013

You're . . . all correct? There has always been a radical rump of the right wing. The difference is that with Obama's election, that rump was absorbed and normalized by the Republican Party.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:31 PM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

Maybe the rump needs some liposuction.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 6:33 PM on October 3, 2013

i don't understand why there hasn't been any burning in effigy though

especially with halloween coming up and john boehner is so orange
posted by elizardbits at 6:33 PM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

Of course there was racism back then, but no one questioned Bill Clinton's birth, did they?

No, but they did accuse him of things like having scores of political opponents murdered. White Obama would face something similarly insane to get them going.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

I remember my outrage back then in Clinton's era, no doubt. But this has been a whirlwind ride of skullduggery the likes of which I never thought I'd see. I'm not outraged so much as wondering when Obama will raise his finger and say, "wanna flip a coin?" Because I'd back that coin.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 6:37 PM on October 3, 2013

You also have to take the internet into account. Sure, there was Prodigy and AOL and that stuff in the 90s, but today, just about everyone has Facebook and it's significantly easier for extremist points of view to get an audience in general. Of course, this is only one part of the bigger explanation for what's going on with the Tea Party.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:40 PM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

(And white woman Obama would face crazy opposition featuring massive amounts of misogyny instead of racism. Haters are lazy and predictable.)
posted by Drinky Die at 6:41 PM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

Well look at Hillary. I would have voted for her. And maybe next time we will get Elizabeth Warren. I would vote for her.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 6:43 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Flunkie you're conflating the Tea Party movement with the general overarching concept of hard right nutjobs.

Yes, of course I am. So? The idea that the current members of the Tea Party are going to up and say "Hey guys, no more black president, so let's keep on keepin' on with the crazy, but no need to call ourselves the Tea Party anymore" seems weird to me.

Sure, maybe they won't call themselves the Tea Party anymore. But I don't see why they wouldn't, and "no more black president" doesn't cut it.
posted by Flunkie at 6:45 PM on October 3, 2013

I miss the Republicans who would just hate Obama for being new money.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:47 PM on October 3, 2013 [9 favorites]

So what do these guys have left to do? "Hey, we are going to keep the govt shut down forever."

And then what? What's their Hail Mary? Because I don't see one.
posted by Marie Mon Dieu at 7:07 PM on October 3, 2013

If Obama caves on this, I'll never vote for him again.
posted by desjardins at 7:11 PM on October 3, 2013 [16 favorites]

I miss the Republicans who would just hate Obama for being new money.

I miss the Republicans who would just hate Obama for beating Battletoads and Ghosts and Goblins without using a Game Genie.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 7:18 PM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

If Obama caves on this, I'll never vote for him again.

Shhhhh or you'll reveal our secret liberal plans to repeal the twenty-second amendment.
posted by Talez at 7:23 PM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

RonButNotStupid: "I miss the Republicans who would just hate Obama for being new money.

I miss the Republicans who would just hate Obama for beating Battletoads and Ghosts and Goblins without using a Game Genie"

Republicans all not even knowing about how you have to beat Ghosts 'n' Goblins twice
posted by DoctorFedora at 7:44 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

All federal employees currently working because they are "excepted"* (which means they get an exception from furlough) will eventually receive a paycheck. But because the federal employees who process paychecks are furloughed, those paychecks will be delayed. I believe tomorrow is the end of a pay period and it may be that the payroll workers were able to process paychecks for this pay period for excepted employees, so they may get a paycheck next Friday. But after that, if the shutdown continues, they won't get paid until the shutdown is over and payroll employees are back.

No. Excepted employees who are working without pay will not be paid until an omnibus continuing resolution is signed or an appropriation for their particular department/agency/activity has been signed because no money has been appropriated to pay them.

On Monday, my agency (and I assume most/all agencies) closed out payroll through September 30. We should receive pay for hours worked between Sept 22 and Sept 30 on our next payday (Oct 8). We get that pay because it was earned in fiscal 2013 when there were appropriated funds from which to pay us.
posted by weebil at 7:50 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Inside the GOP: Report on focus groups with Evangelical, Tea Party, and moderate Republicans (PDF)

Understand that the base thinks they are losing politically and losing control of the country and their starting reaction is “worried,” “discouraged,” “scared,” and “concerned” about the direction of the country and a little powerless to change course.
posted by Drinky Die at 8:23 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

This ... Obama’s…just pure distilled Marxism. (Evangelical man, Roanoke) from Drinky Die's link made me laugh out loud and die a little inside.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 8:33 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

No. Excepted employees who are working without pay will not be paid until an omnibus continuing resolution is signed or an appropriation for their particular department/agency/activity has been signed because no money has been appropriated to pay them.

"eventually"
posted by empath at 8:42 PM on October 3, 2013

from Drinky Die's link: "Obama's a Liar?" It's hard to find an opinion in any of those focus groups, even the 'Moderates', that isn't based on misinformation or DISinformation. The GOP/FoxNews/TalkRadio brainwashing program has done well...

Of course for me, the biggest difference between the parties is the Democrats lie half the time and the Republicans lie ALL the time.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:45 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Something I happened to run across the other day:

"But moral, political, intellectual improvement are duties assigned by the Author of Our Existence to social no less than to individual man. For the fulfillment of those duties governments are invested with power, and to the attainment of the end--the progressive improvement of the condition of the governed--the exercise of delegated powers is a duty as sacred and indispensable as the usurpation of powers not granted is criminal and odious...

"But if... [the powers] enumerated in the Constitution may be effectually brought into action by laws promoting the improvement of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, the cultivation and encouragement of the mechanic and of the elegant arts, the advancement of literature, and the progress of the sciences, ornamental and profound, to refrain from exercising them for the benefit of the people themselves would be to hide in the earth the talent committed to our charge--would be treachery to the most sacred of trusts."

- John Q Adams, First Annual Message, 1825.
posted by koeselitz at 8:55 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

well, John Q Adams was the George W Bush of the 1800s...
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:59 PM on October 3, 2013

Looks like this could be pretty bad for America's service academies.
posted by A Bad Catholic at 9:15 PM on October 3, 2013 [1 favorite]

Pediatricians Warn That Cuts to SNAP Program Will Harm Children

"In a commentary in this week's issue of Lancet, pediatricians from Boston Medical Center (BMC) call the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly the Food Stamp Program), one of America's most cost-effective and successful public health programs in the country. According to the authors, not only does it make life much better for children and families, it also saves society money. Unfortunately they also point out that despite convincing evidence of the beneficial effects of SNAP on child health, legislators have targeted SNAP for cuts as they struggle to address the federal budget, lagging economy and the U.S. farm bill."

"Evidence for the beneficial effect of SNAP on childhood food insecurity is strong according to the authors. SNAP benefits, when received by pregnant women, are associated with decreased rates of low birth weight. In households with children, SNAP reduces the risk of food insecurity; enhances intake of B vitamins, iron, and calcium; lowers the risk of anemia, obesity, poor health, developmental delays, hospitalization for failure to thrive, low academic test scores, and reports for child abuse or neglect. Children aged five through nine, from SNAP-participating families had better academic outcomes and less obesity than non-participating families.
"Scientific evidence shows that SNAP is a wise investment in the brains and bodies of American children, an investment that should be increased, not curtailed," stressed Frank."
posted by VikingSword at 9:26 PM on October 3, 2013 [7 favorites]

It is sounding more and more like woman took wrong turn, paniced and was killed by an overly agressive police response.

have you seen the videos? No way. Wrong turn? Have you ever been at the intersection of 15th and Pennsylvania? It isn't possible. Its like a wrong turn into Ft. Knox. It gets done, but nobody rams the gate less than 400 feet from the White House, surrounded by the police, running over a police officer, then leading dozens of police cars on a chase towards the U.S. Capitol. And what did she do when she got there? Continued to evade police, then drove towards the Capitol of the United States while the country was in a massive crisis. She then was blocked in by at least 9 police with guns drawn and a police car behind her. Rather than surrender to police, she ran over another cop, smashed a cop car and continued to evade.

This is like a 6 minute sequence in which the person attempted, according to dozens of eyewitnesses, to ram her way into the White House. She did not slow down and ask for directions. She ran over a Secret Service Uniformed Division officer, throwing him on the hood of her car, and then sped directly for the U.S. Capitol.

No it was not overly agressive. The driver of the vehicle was aggressive.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:33 PM on October 3, 2013 [4 favorites]

If I had been looking out of my office window, I would have seen the chase. I look over that part of Pennsylvania Avenue. I heard more cop cars than I've ever heard, ever. If she wasn't going to stop, she was going to have to be stopped.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:35 PM on October 3, 2013

oneswellfoop: "well, John Q Adams was the George W Bush of the 1800s..."

Heh. Well, not really sure where to start with that one. He certainly had his problems (though of course not as many as his successor.) But in the bit I was quoting he was really standing staunchly against the proto-Jacksonians in favor of the national Democrat (soon to be Whig) program of national improvement - a program that entailed federal powers we take for granted today. As well we should; they're a necessary part of a Federal Republic like ours. Sometimes it seems like people want to believe that before 1930 the government was run by a few guys in Washington with some desks and a filing cabinet. No, there were plenty of people who argued stridently and successfully for the government's power to act in the benefit of the people. As it should.
posted by koeselitz at 9:37 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

If Obama caves on this, I'll never vote for him again.

Hamburger?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:43 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

In the SA thread where I found that link about GOP focus groups someone asked for an analysis of the left and someone linked this: Left 3.0

It's a really good read too, feel like I learned something about my own political views. Reading both of those links really helps give you a big picture understanding of the political forces that have pushed us into this crazy situation.

With a gop-controlled House, there are limits to what a Democratic president can do. Left 3.0 is not unsympathetic. But it demands a fight. And there is an emerging corollary of considerable interest. Health care reform is once again the decisive precedent.

The next time a Democratic president has a Democratic Congress to work with, Left 3.0 will expect major achievement to show for it. Performance on the level of what Bill Clinton achieved with a Democratic Congress (or for that matter, of what George W. Bush achieved with six years of gop control of Congress) will not be acceptable. When government is divided, you must fight as best you can; when government is yours, you must win.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:03 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

when government is yours, you must win.

You must win ... something ... "and I don't even know what that is." Yeah, this sounds like one of the forces that got us into this crazy situation, alright. I'm personally grateful if dubaya may have held off some of the crazies in his party from "winning" while he was president. I don't think it should be about winning. It should be doing what they honestly believe is best for the future of the country, and the planet for that matter, and getting a majority of people on board with it. And it should be about trying to understand and compromise with people that disagree with them, who are willing to do the same.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:13 PM on October 3, 2013 [5 favorites]

Senate Chaplain Barry C. Black: "Have mercy upon us, oh God, and save us from the Madness."
posted by tonycpsu at 10:30 PM on October 3, 2013 [9 favorites]

tonycpsu: "Senate Chaplain Barry C. Black: "Have mercy upon us, oh God, and save us from the Madness.""

That chaplain is my new hero. Perhaps the one thing that's good about this whole mess, is that the obstructionist members of Congress get a verbal beat down whenever they open the day's session.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 10:54 PM on October 3, 2013 [2 favorites]

Good god. Arguing with some dude on Facebook. He says "The ACA would never have passed if the Democrats didn't control the House and the Senate."

No shit. The pure gall of those fuckers, promising to pass something if elected, getting elected, then passing it! How dare they!

Good lord.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:07 PM on October 3, 2013 [24 favorites]

Business Week - Republicans Are No Longer the Party of Business

“When talk of a shutdown first began, the perception among businesspeople I know was that this was just Washington being Washington again,” Gentle says. “Now they’re saying, ‘This is really getting in the way of operating my business.’ The business world is hard enough without Republicans making it even more difficult. It’s just ridiculous.”

This an interesting comment:

Not only will most middle class Americans pay higher premiums, many of us are also being cut hours at work. I work at a community college and all us adjuncts received a letter last spring stating that although the president has delayed the employer mandate for large companies, the college will start to implement reduction of part-timers' working hours because of Obama-care. So instead of the 15 semester credit hours I could previously teach, I now can only teach 11 semester credit hours! It seems so unfair to be cut back more hours when most of us part-timers barely made ends meet before!

It's not like ACA won't have problems (hopefully it doesn't have big ones), but if congress were actually functional I would think things like this would be fixable. Of course the GOP isn't interested in fixing problems, they just want to see ACA fail and the President fail.
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:15 PM on October 3, 2013

Walmart moving thousands of part-time workers to full-time status
posted by Drinky Die at 11:22 PM on October 3, 2013 [28 favorites]

Drinky Die, that deserves it's own FPP.
posted by daq at 11:34 PM on October 3, 2013 [3 favorites]

Yes it does. Wow. I read about the Disney thing but Walmart getting on board like that is on a whole other level.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:03 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

How the White House sees the shutdown by Ezra Klein

As the White House sees it, Speaker John Boehner has begun playing politics as game of Calvinball, in which Republicans invent new rules on the fly and then demand the media and the Democrats accept them as reality and find a way to work around them.

....

Top administration officials say that President Obama feels as strongly about this fight as he has about anything in his presidency. He believes that he will be handing his successor a fatally weakened office, and handing the American people an unacceptable risk of future financial crises, if he breaks, or even bends, in the face of Republican demands.

posted by wemayfreeze at 2:50 AM on October 4, 2013 [8 favorites]

Obama feels as strongly about this fight as he has about anything in his presidency. He believes that he will be handing his successor a fatally weakened office, and handing the American people an unacceptable risk of future financial crises, if he breaks, or even bends, in the face of Republican demands.

If he would get on TV every day until the shutdown ends and say that (in a decently crafted set of messages), speaking directly to the American people, I think he could mobilize a lot more support against the Republicans. No doubt, it would be spun like crazy in the wingnut echo chamber, but for the rest of the population, it would be a set of coherent points that would address the helpless sense of "What IS this bullshit?" so many people who are busy working hard and raising families feel, but don't know what to do about. But politics, I guess.
posted by Rykey at 4:40 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

You must win ... something ... "and I don't even know what that is." Yeah, this sounds like one of the forces that got us into this crazy situation, alright.

But I know what that is: A public health insurance option. Large investments in education, national infrastructure, and alternative energy. A tax structure that reduces income inequality and allows everyone to benefit from our nation's economy.

"Win" is an unfortunate choice of words, but it doesn't have the same rhetorical impact of "when government is yours, you must be able set policy and national debate without being stymied by a minority that's determined to see you fail and willing to wreck the economy to make it happen"
posted by RonButNotStupid at 5:10 AM on October 4, 2013 [8 favorites]

I heard this on NPR this morning, and spent some time afterward thinking about how a large part of the problem, at the macro-est level, is Boehner. He's not only not good at working with the President, he's not good at working with anyone, and unable to control the situation on his side of the aisle. Completely apart from issues of philosophy of government, he seems to be just a weak leader, rigid, with poor relationships in general, and frightened to lose his position. I find myself thinking we would not even be in this position with a different Speaker.
posted by Miko at 5:32 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Love the contrast in body language between the president and Boehner in the picture from that NPR article.
posted by octothorpe at 5:36 AM on October 4, 2013

Love the contrast in body language between the president and Boehner in the picture from that NPR article.

OMG he looks like the Grinch in that shot.
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 5:42 AM on October 4, 2013

Good god. Arguing with some dude on Facebook. He says "The ACA would never have passed if the Democrats didn't control the House and the Senate."

No shit. The pure gall of those fuckers, promising to pass something if elected, getting elected, then passing it! How dare they!

I'm beginning to think that the country is becoming ungovernable because too many people no long accept the government as legitimate.
posted by empath at 5:49 AM on October 4, 2013 [17 favorites]

empath, that's crazy talk. Next you'll be saying that it has to do with the president's skin color.
posted by Aizkolari at 5:54 AM on October 4, 2013

I know it's not kosher, but lord Boehner looks like he has a darker skin tone ten the president, especially in the hands. Which if just normal pigmentation would be, eh whatever, but dude seriously needs to stop it with the tanning booths
posted by edgeways at 6:06 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yeah so I'm assuming these guys fail, because otherwise, God help us, as Krugman sez, so what do they do next. Maybe if they could be distracted in some way. I volunteer to dope slap a bunch.
posted by angrycat at 6:07 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

slapping in the face or the back of the head is not what I have in mind, namely the foot and a rather more sensitive area of the body.
posted by edgeways at 6:10 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Completely apart from issues of philosophy of government, he seems to be just a weak leader, rigid, with poor relationships in general, and frightened to lose his position. I find myself thinking we would not even be in this position with a different Speaker.

I've mentioned it on MeFi before, but Boehner has badly handled his Speakership because he didn't expect to be a coalition Speaker. Gingrich and Hastert only had to keep the Republican Representatives in line, but Boehner has to whip the Republicans and the Tea Partiers. Make no mistake -- they are a different party, without the courtesy of using a T after their names instead of an R. Being a coalition leader is a different skill set than being a party leader, and Boehner was utterly unprepared for it.
posted by Etrigan at 6:11 AM on October 4, 2013 [8 favorites]

One comment deleted; there are other open threads for discussion of surveillance issues.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:11 AM on October 4, 2013

Regarding Boehner's complexion, Obama has said: "After all, we have a lot in common. He is a person of color — although not a color that appears in the natural world."

I am disappointed that the Post live update link seems to be borked, showing old news from last week. That was a great resource and I hope they fix it soon.
posted by exogenous at 6:24 AM on October 4, 2013

Looks like this is the new live updates link, though it's missing the old updates. Good news is that a bill to give back pay to federal workers already has the support of 18 Republicans in the House.
posted by exogenous at 6:30 AM on October 4, 2013

Foreign Governments Warn Against US Travel Due to Government Shutdown.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:32 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

I'm beginning to think that the country is becoming ungovernable because too many people no long accept the government as legitimate.

Yes, after being told for decades - often by people running for office and asking for their votes! - that government is terrible and doesn't work and is obstructionist and is ruining the lives of every Real American^TM and blah blah blah. A whole generation has grown up hearing this stuff not just as the talking points from the fringes of a political party, but as its foundation. I guess it never occurred to Norquist and the Republicans that this is kind of a double-edged sword. (DUH!)
posted by rtha at 6:42 AM on October 4, 2013 [7 favorites]

Foreign Governments Warn Against US Travel Due to Government Shutdown

Wow, that headline is misleading at best. That article provides exactly zero examples of countries warning against travel to the U.S.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Here's a list of relatively moderate Republicans who could probably use to hear from those in their districts that they want a clean CR and that their wingnut faction is putting all of them at risk for being voted out of office.
posted by Miko at 6:51 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Some of you might be interested that this budget thing has leaked into the My Little Pony fandom, and it perhaps presages the Speaker of the House transforming into a wicked stallion of darkness: Nightmare Boehner.
posted by cyberscythe at 6:58 AM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

Oh shit Rand Paul mic slip
posted by angrycat at 7:05 AM on October 4, 2013

"We're going to win this one"

FUCK YOU
posted by angrycat at 7:06 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

My House rep wasn't on the list, but I called his office yesterday anyhow. I feel bad for the poor bastard who has to weather all those calls.
posted by Rykey at 7:10 AM on October 4, 2013

I can't wait to see this photo of a napping house member accompanied by the headline "Republicans Asleep at the Wheel." (facebook link, no login required)
posted by troika at 7:10 AM on October 4, 2013

Especially since the guy answering the phone probably isn't getting paid for his effort rykey
posted by vuron at 7:11 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Nightmare Boehner

I thought those were supposed to stop after puberty.
posted by backseatpilot at 7:21 AM on October 4, 2013 [6 favorites]

The fundamental flaw in the set up of the US government is that it makes one major assumption: those in the government WANT a government. All of those checks and balances proceed from that assumption. And the problem with the Tea Party isn't that it's a bunch of Republicans infected with racism (which isn't to say that the Tea Party isn't racist - it's SUPER RACIST but at the end of the day racism isn't a structural defect, it's a moral failing) it's that it's infected with libertarianism. Which means that it's the physical embodiment of the fatal flaw. The Tea Party is America's Kryptonite.

It's kind of amazing it took this long for someone to come up with a way to take down the country. I guess they just didn't think to do it from the inside until now.
posted by marylynn at 7:36 AM on October 4, 2013 [17 favorites]

Oh shit Rand Paul mic slip

Article here.

Stupid thing is, the mouth-breathers will buy his bullshit "But we're willing to compromise!" line (see the comments in that article). It doesn't surprise me, but I don't think it'll ever not enrage me, that a major political party can bank on the fact that a large part of the populace does not know, and does not care to know that they are being straight-up lied to. With really obvious, easy-to-verify lies.
posted by Rykey at 7:45 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Paul: I just did CNN, and I just go over and over again, ‘We’re willing to compromise. We’re willing to negotiate.’ I don’t think [the Democrats have] poll tested, ‘we won’t negotiate.’ I think it’s awful for them to say that over and over again.

It seems to be going over just fine? I'm actually pretty surprised at how broadly people understand that there is no negotiation to have on this, that it's just extortion. Maybe not most of the Republican base and certainly not the Tea Party base, but the Dems seem to have a good chunk of sympathy from the middle right now.

I think the thing Paul doesn't even understand is that the Dems are in "fuck the polling, do the right thing" mode and standing surprisingly strong on that. Like Obama was saying, this is important for the precedent it sets for the next President and Congress.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:55 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

jason_steakums: "I think the thing Paul doesn't even understand is that the Dems are in "fuck the polling, do the right thing" mode "

I'm not so sure. The polling is with them right now -- people are blaming the GOP, as they should. If the polling were different, I'd like to believe the Democrats would do the right "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" thing, but when in recent memory have they done so?
posted by tonycpsu at 8:08 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Walmart moving thousands of part-time workers to full-time status

I clicked that link three separate times to make sure it wasn't actually a link to the Onion.
posted by elizardbits at 8:09 AM on October 4, 2013 [9 favorites]

4 Things to Know on Day 4 Of the Shutdown - includes a shutdown clock!
posted by backseatpilot at 8:13 AM on October 4, 2013

The Shutdown Standoff Is One of the Worst Crises in American History
"What is happening in America is that [the social contract underlying its government] is being voided, largely through the initiative of rightwing Republicans from the deep South and rural Midwest. America is not likely to become Afghanistan, but it could easily become Italy or Greece or even Weimar Germany."
posted by T.D. Strange at 8:48 AM on October 4, 2013

Riding the Tea Party Tiger: Has it been worth it for the GOP?

“It may be hard to understand why a person might jump off a cliff, unless you understand they’re being chased by a tiger,” McInturff said.

“That tiger is the Tea Party.”
posted by lattiboy at 8:56 AM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

For a good account of the Tea Party vis-a-vis Boehner and others, I recommend When the Tea Party Came to Town: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives' Most Combative, Dysfunctional, and Infuriating Term in Modern History.
posted by Rykey at 9:01 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Some reps from my state (Both D and R) are foregoing their paychecks during the shutdown, one who has not is Renee Ellmers, a republican. Her reason for continuing to collect her paycheck: "The thing of it is, I need my paycheck. That is the bottom line."

Well good for her. The tone-deafness of these folks is beyond my capacity to understand.
posted by marxchivist at 9:01 AM on October 4, 2013 [10 favorites]

I'm not so sure. The polling is with them right now -- people are blaming the GOP, as they should. If the polling were different, I'd like to believe the Democrats would do the right "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" thing, but when in recent memory have they done so?

Yeah, it's the Republicans who are flying blind here. None of this was intended by the leadership, the lemmings followed Cruz in and he had and has no plan.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:02 AM on October 4, 2013

Thinking about it some more, I think the Democrats should negotiate. Here's a proposal to get the ball rolling:

In exchange for delaying the implementation of the ACA for one month, Republicans agree to tax capital gains as ordinary income.

In exchange for delaying the implementation of the ACA for a second month, Republicans agree to remove the cap on income subject to social security taxes.

In exchange for delaying the implementation of the ACA for a third month, Republicans agree to expand SNAP and TANF.

In exchange for delaying the implementation of the ACA for a fourth month, Republicans agree to devote half of the annual military budget to combating anthropogenic climate change -- a budget commitment until more than 50% of climate scientists think AGW is no longer a problem.

After that, Republicans can buy additional months of delay at a cost of an additional 5% added to the top marginal tax rate per month of delay.

Under this negotiation plan, I would be perfectly happy to see the ACA delayed by a year.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:03 AM on October 4, 2013 [43 favorites]

(Republicans starting a major fight with no exit strategy? Can you believe it?)
posted by Drinky Die at 9:03 AM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Jonathan Livengood, the ACA went live on October 1. It's a done deal.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:04 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Sure. But the Republicans are still demanding repeals and delays in exchange for restarting the government, aren't they?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:05 AM on October 4, 2013

Insane Fox News reporter "explains" Obamacare in Star Trek Gorn mask
posted by Artw at 9:09 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

I mean, the ACA has gone live several times in different ways, right? Passed in 2010, ruled constitutional in 2012, with various provisions being phased in all the way out to 2020. And it could, in principle, be rolled back or partially rolled back even now. Otherwise, the Republicans make even less sense than I thought they did.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:09 AM on October 4, 2013

Renee "I need my paycheck" Ellmers' Facebook page. She is not finding much support there I tell ya what.
posted by edgeways at 9:10 AM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Insane Fox News reporter "explains" Obamacare in Star Trek Gorn mask

Just to be clear, as the update at the bottom says, Alex Jones is not a Fox News reporter. He is, however, insane

And explaining Obamacare in a Gorn mask.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 9:14 AM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Jonathan Livengood, people are sick and dying because they can't get healthcare coverage and/or cannot pay for the steep costs of healthcare without coverage. You might be able to wait a year, but many people cannot. And should not, because IT PASSED THROUGH ALL THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT. Congress passed the bill, the President signed it into law, and the Supreme Court upheld it.

No one should have to wait any longer because the Republican party is throwing a fucking tantrum.
posted by troika at 9:14 AM on October 4, 2013 [19 favorites]

edgeways: "I know it's not kosher, but lord Boehner looks like he has a darker skin tone ten the president, especially in the hands. Which if just normal pigmentation would be, eh whatever, but dude seriously needs to stop it with the tanning booths"

Cigs and Tanning Booths? Good thing he's got one of those great health care plans, and I highly doubt he's a vegetarian, something tells me he's got plenty of red meat in that diet of his.

He's gonna end up looking like this woman if he's not careful (NSFS (sanity))
posted by symbioid at 9:19 AM on October 4, 2013

Artw: "Insane Fox News reporter "explains" Obamacare in Star Trek Gorn mask"

Mmm, calling Alex Jones a "Fox News Reporter" is like calling David Icke an MSNBC Reporter (only just a wee bit closer, because Fox News actually has the gall to put Jones on the air, which... is a little disturbing).
posted by symbioid at 9:21 AM on October 4, 2013

IIRC he was actually a sports presenter for the BBC...
posted by Artw at 9:25 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Politico: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid privately told fellow Democratic senators this week what he really thought of Speaker John Boehner.

“He’s a coward,” Reid angrily said, referring to Boehner’s private push for federal health care contributions for lawmakers and their staff. Boehner later backed legislation to end those subsidies in order to win points with House GOP conservatives. “He’s a coward!” Reid exclaimed.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:26 AM on October 4, 2013

And it could, in principle, be rolled back or partially rolled back even now.

Can't any legislation be rolled back? It just takes a new bill being passed into law by both branches of congress and signed by the President. Or whatever.
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:27 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Biden Calls Park Ranger Who Was Berated By GOP Congressman: 'I'm Proud Of You'

If Bill Clinton is the Secretary of Explaining Stuff, Joe Biden should be Secretary of Being Genial and Avuncular.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:29 AM on October 4, 2013 [35 favorites]

Can't any legislation be rolled back? It just takes a new bill being passed into law by both branches of congress and signed by the President. Or whatever.

Yeah, we're not going to do that with people's health insurance.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:30 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

"This isn't some damn game!" hisses the irate hostage taker, like he's Hans fucking Gruber or something.

These idiots are cartoons, you can't negotiate with cartoons.
posted by Artw at 9:33 AM on October 4, 2013

Dip. Get lots of Dip.
posted by The Whelk at 9:35 AM on October 4, 2013 [7 favorites]

Can't any legislation be rolled back?
—Yeah, we're not going to do that with people's health insurance.

That's why Republicans have worked so hard to kill the ACA in the womb. They know that once it takes effect and people start to realize it's not all medicine rations and death panels, there will be about as much chance of repealing it as there would be for Medicare or Social Security: none.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:37 AM on October 4, 2013 [9 favorites]

Couple that wanted to get married at the Jefferson Memorial get married with Stephen Colbert and Mandy Patinkin instead.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:37 AM on October 4, 2013 [12 favorites]

Some reps from my state (Both D and R) are foregoing their paychecks during the shutdown, one who has not is Renee Ellmers, a republican. Her reason for continuing to collect her paycheck: "The thing of it is, I need my paycheck. That is the bottom line."

Yeah, it's annoying how hypocritical her position is, but I am not outraged about this. I would prefer if more of congress weren't so rich that they could afford to give away their paychecks for a tiny fraction of political good will. Would be nice if they were more economically representative of the general public.
posted by zennie at 9:38 AM on October 4, 2013 [8 favorites]

The National Cathedral is also offering its garden for people who had planned to marry at memorials that are shutdown.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 9:39 AM on October 4, 2013

Dip. Get lots of Dip.

At least Dr. Doom was interested in creating public works projects.
posted by backseatpilot at 9:40 AM on October 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

Yeah, rolling it back got about 50 times harder once it started. At this point having the ACA implemented gives a pretty solid wall for the Democrats and Obama to put their backs against, the longer it goes on the thicker that wall will be.

Ellmers' husband is a surgeon whose income already puts them in the top 2%-5%, if they are a desperate for the income as she make sit out to be they are really really bad at budgeting.
posted by edgeways at 9:42 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

The National Cathedral has a gargoyle Darth Vader. That is all.
posted by klarck at 9:42 AM on October 4, 2013 [8 favorites]

Yeah, it's annoying how hypocritical her position is, but I am not outraged about this. I would prefer if more of congress weren't so rich that they could afford to give away their paychecks for a tiny fraction of political good will.

I agree with the second half, but I'm still outraged by the hypocrisy. She's got people under her making a hell of a lot less money, let alone the rest of the federal employees. This is her bed, she can lie in it without whining.
posted by inigo2 at 9:43 AM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

Jonathan Livengood Thinking about it some more, I think the Democrats should negotiate.

That would be nothing short of filling an airborne tanker with gasoline and pouring it over a raging forest fire. This isn't politics as usual. The Republicans are literally holding the nation hostage by refusing to pass boring, procedural legislation that keeps the government running unless their demands--which include the repeal or delay of a law that passed both houses, was signed by the President, and withstood judicial scrutiny by the Supreme Court--are met. That's never happened before.

Any negotiation will establish a terrible precedent that will almost certainly have far-reaching ramifications.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 9:43 AM on October 4, 2013 [22 favorites]

The Wrong Side of History
posted by Artw at 9:45 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

At least Dr. Doom was interested in creating public works projects.

We bought the federal goverment so we could dismantle it.
posted by The Whelk at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

My weed dealer is mad about this too, which means this shit is intense
posted by angrycat at 9:47 AM on October 4, 2013 [18 favorites]

I get the impression that Boenher is now freaking out because something important is at stake - his career. Fuck everything else, obvs.
posted by Artw at 9:49 AM on October 4, 2013

Let us not forget that this ceiling is an artificial and arbitrary joke in the first place. It was only invented since 1917 -- the US has been in debt EVERY SINGLE YEAR SINCE 1835.

It's not anything in the Constitution that says there must be a debt ceiling. That doesn't mean it's unconstitutional. Just that it's not explicitly called for, and thus, not a necessary component of how the US runs its affairs.

It only exists at this point to use as a ploy to ring extractions out of a given party's opponents in negotiations.
posted by symbioid at 9:50 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

The National Cathedral has a gargoyle Darth Vader. That is all.

Designed by a third grader. In the 1980s. Ergo: This was not a work of irony; this was a work of love.
posted by Atom Eyes at 9:51 AM on October 4, 2013 [9 favorites]

Possibly we could also get some sweet concessions on something we want if we rolled back women's right to vote and the laws against child labor, but we aren't going to do that either.

We are already behind where we need to be. Any more concessions will desperately weaken the foundations of our society. (I would argue they already have). Time to move into the 21st century, no matter how many tantrums and damage the Republicans do, we have to fight. We can't afford to give any more away, especially to a party that has consistently shown itself never satisfied with what they win. They want it all. Give in, and they'll just be back. Give them abortion, they come back for birth control (birth control! seriously.) Give them fewer labor unions and they come back for minimum wages and workplace safety. Give them a weakened voting rights act and the voter roll purges, closed voting places, and ID restrictions just keep multiplying.

They don't want to allow us to keep any of the reforms of the last 100 years. None. Not a single one. And if we don't stop them, they will do their best to drag us all the way back to the misery our great-great grandparents had to endure.
posted by emjaybee at 9:54 AM on October 4, 2013 [26 favorites]

I got to use Darth Vader as an example in class the other day and it was the best idea. Darth Vaders for all cathedrals!
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:54 AM on October 4, 2013

Thinking about it some more, I think the Democrats should negotiate.

how about in exchange for a clean CR and the raising of the debt limit, we have a functioning government?
posted by pyramid termite at 9:56 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Daily Caller: Need health insurance? The Obama administration has you covered. Simply dial 1-800-FUCKYO to reach the next available health-care provider.

Far from being a mistype, that’s the official number that Health and Human Services wants Americans to dial when seeking health care. Obamacare’s national call center really did list its number as 1-800-318-2596

Okay, I'm laughing at this one.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:58 AM on October 4, 2013

...except that 1 does not equal U?
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 10:01 AM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

"This isn't some damn game!" hisses the irate hostage taker, like he's Hans fucking Gruber or something.

"I wanted this to be professional. Efficient, adult, cooperative, not a lot to ask."
posted by octobersurprise at 10:02 AM on October 4, 2013

...except that 1 does not equal U?

Yeah, the joke kind of breaks down when you actually try it on a keypad. 1-800-F1UCKYO doesn't quite have the same instant humor value.
posted by Uncle Ira at 10:03 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

I think some people are missing the humor in Jonathan Livengood's comment above.

The things he suggest we get in return for letting the Republicans delay funding the ACA are clearly not things they would ever go for. It was a wistful wishful-thinking joke I think ...
posted by freecellwizard at 10:04 AM on October 4, 2013 [13 favorites]

Yeah it's actually 1-800-F1UCKYO, not as cool.
posted by TwoWordReview at 10:04 AM on October 4, 2013

Thinking about it some more, I think the Democrats should negotiate.

Why on earth is everyone treating this like a serious comment about a thing that Jonathan Livengood thinks should actually factually in real life happen and which he will personally as a powerful member of the US government cause to actually factually in real life happen?
posted by elizardbits at 10:07 AM on October 4, 2013 [12 favorites]

I know the general perception is that the Tea Party candidates are safe because of gerrymandering, but I wonder how safe many of the Tea Party districts really are. I'm in one, and here Steve King beat Christie Vilsack 53% to 45% in 2012, which doesn't seem an insurmountable hill to climb for a challenger, especially with so few votes involved since you can campaign up close and personal with the individual people. Jim Mowrer is running against him as a Dem next year, and his story plays well here - he's a veteran, and he grew up farming. He's already out pounding the pavement and talking to voters, and he's jumped on King's recent bullshit. I wonder how many similar districts there are for the Tea Party crew.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:07 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

The old witch's advice referred upthread makes a pretty good case for Obama taking the offensive in the negotions. It's a pretty good read.
posted by klarck at 10:10 AM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Well Bachmann is out next year, not running, but her seat really is pretty safe territory for the TP/GOP, without a doubt it is the worst gerrymandered seat in MN, and prob in the surrounding states as well. There are at least 3 State Goopers so far vieing for the nom, including the fellow who lost the Govs race last time out. But, am sure one of them will beat whomever the DFL puts up. We can only hope for less bad than Michelle.
posted by edgeways at 10:13 AM on October 4, 2013

cyberscythe: "Nightmare Boehner."

backseatpilot: "I thought those were supposed to stop after puberty."

Orange Nightmare Boehner is indeed a condition rarely observed in adult individuals. It is usually the result of a complex interaction between erectile dysfunction drugs and high doses of beta-Carotene (provitamin A)
posted by Hairy Lobster at 10:14 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

angrycat: "My weed dealer is mad about this too, which means this shit is intense"

Wha~
posted by boo_radley at 10:14 AM on October 4, 2013

How the hell does the same state send Bachmann and a Muslim (Keith Ellison) to congress? I don't know if I should be proud, of refer it for a psychiatric evaluation.
posted by edgeways at 10:17 AM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Andrew Sullivan - Why They'll die on this hill

The base Republican voters in these focus groups view themselves as besieged by minorities seeking free benefits, and see Obama as the Pied Piper of those hoping to abuse the system. They are not explicitly racist about the president or about the beneficiaries of the new goodies (though they had no such qualms during Bush’s Medicare D entitlement). But they believe they are losing an America that a Roanoke evangelical describes like this:

Everybody is above average. Everybody is happy. Everybody is white. Everybody is middle class, whether or not they really are. Everybody looks that way. Everybody goes to the same pool. Everybody goes – there’s one library, one post office. Very homogeneous.

This is the America they believe is being taken away from them.
posted by Artw at 10:18 AM on October 4, 2013 [10 favorites]

The things he suggest we get in return for letting the Republicans delay funding the ACA are clearly not things they would ever go for. It was a wistful wishful-thinking joke I think ...

Exactly. Sorry if this wasn't obvious to everyone. Maybe if I had made the first demand be that all Republican governors resign?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:19 AM on October 4, 2013

They would probably have the governors resign before a cap gains tax increase.
posted by cmfletcher at 10:22 AM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

They don't want to allow us to keep any of the reforms of the last 100 years. None. Not a single one. And if we don't stop them, they will do their best to drag us all the way back to the misery our great-great grandparents had to endure.

As posted previously. . I think this spells it out nicely.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:31 AM on October 4, 2013

Any negotiation will establish a terrible precedent that will almost certainly have far-reaching ramifications.

It's goodbye to democracy and the rule of law. Law passed? Who cares! A small minority can hold the country hostage until it's repealed or weakened!

No rule of law. No foundation for government. This is MOTHERFUCKING SERIOUS SHIT.
posted by desjardins at 10:31 AM on October 4, 2013 [9 favorites]

Major Storms Are Forming, and America's Meteorologists Are Stuck at Home
posted by octothorpe at 10:35 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Am I remembering correctly that Alex Jones does actually believe in lizard people who control the world? And not in a metaphorical sense? Not necessarily Gorns, but close enough?

I got a doubt that I might be misremembering when I saw the subsequent comment about David Icke, who I'm pretty sure believes in lizard people who control the world, and not in a metaphorical sense. So now I think I might be conflating the two.
posted by Flunkie at 10:38 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Let us not forget that this ceiling is an artificial and arbitrary joke in the first place. It was only invented since 1917.

There is actually some legislative history that explains this. Prior to 1917, every single bond auction issued by the Treasury had to be individually approved by the Congress. They had very tight reins on all spending and debt. As the size of government increased, this became increasingly impractical, so Congress gave wider scope to the Treasury to allow them to more freely and efficiently manage the budget. But they created the debt limit as remnant of their former complete control Treasury operations. It seemed like a reasonable compromise at the time. Today, the debt limit is mostly symbolic since the power to control spending appropriations implies the creation of debt.
posted by JackFlash at 10:42 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Democrats are going to be running a not so subtle ad during football this weekend.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:44 AM on October 4, 2013 [8 favorites]

Ha, Jonathan, one of the crimes of our current political climate is that it has rendered satire nearly impossible. And thus hard to recognize. You would probably have to put something like unicorns or pixie dust in your joke to make it obvious these days.

I've kind of gotten afraid of spouting sarcastic satire, because much like 1984, it only seems to give certain people ideas.
posted by emjaybee at 10:49 AM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

The Democrats are going to be running a not so subtle ad during football this weekend.

I like this, but I wish it had included something to the point of: "Enough Republicans want to vote for a bill that would pass -- but Boehner won't let them."
posted by inigo2 at 10:50 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Drinky Die: "The Democrats are going to be running a not so subtle ad during football this weekend."

Hoooooo-leeeeee shit, that's gonna leave a mark.

I don't know if political TV ads have the same power they used to back in the day, but I'd have to put that in the conversation with the "Daisy" and Willie Horton ads as the most effective political ads ever.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:50 AM on October 4, 2013

I'm not so sure, tonycpsu. It seems to be preaching to the choir; I doubt it will convince anyone in the "both sides are being childish" camp, quite the opposite. And it'll only work the Republicans into a bigger frenzy. I agree with inigo2, it needs more substance to really push the message.
posted by Roommate at 10:54 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yeah, it takes away the rational high ground the Dems were holding, and plays right into the "both sides are horrible" bullshit.
posted by Slap*Happy at 10:56 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

I love Artw's Wrong Side of History link above. I'd like this in print, not just in a blog. My favorite part:

“Can you remember a time in your lifetime when a major political party was just sitting around, begging for America to fail?” So asked a perplexed Bill Clinton a few days ago.

The answer is no. What kind of failure are we talking about? Not just to equity markets, jobs, the mechanics of daily life in the world’s biggest economy. The shutdown stops research on Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s, cancer treatments. Two-thirds of the employees at the Centers for Disease Control were sent home. Many food inspectors, people who train air traffic controllers, anti-terrorism experts — all furloughed. And shed a tear for Yosemite National Park on its 123rd birthday Monday. America’s Best Idea — as the parks are called — couldn’t compete with America’s Worst Idea, the Tea Party Republicans.

And let’s never forget that these sacrifices, real and lasting, are being made for one thing: to block health care reform.
posted by bearwife at 10:57 AM on October 4, 2013 [10 favorites]

Some diamonds in the rough: #ShutdownPickUpLines
posted by inigo2 at 10:58 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

I'm in one, and here Steve King beat Christie Vilsack 53% to 45% in 2012, which doesn't seem an insurmountable hill to climb for a challenger, especially with so few votes involved since you can campaign up close and personal with the individual people.

You also need to look at the numbers that Obama and Romney got in your district. Someone likely benefited more from the up-ticket race, so adjust your expectations accordingly.

the key is that we should never assume it isn't worth fighting for all of this. We got here because we actually, finally have been enacting our priorities. Health Care Reform. Wall Street Reform. DADT repeal. That's what generates the insane fighting we see now.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:00 AM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

Well, the ad is a callback to this sort of thing. The story about Newt shutting down the government because of a tantrum over how he was treated on Air Force One was a big part of the narrative of the last shutdown.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:01 AM on October 4, 2013

Slap*Happy: "Yeah, it takes away the rational high ground the Dems were holding, and plays right into the "both sides are horrible" bullshit."

Ads appeal to raw emotion. Note that the two examples I cited, both judged to be extremely effective, were also nasty, below-the-belt attacks with very little substance to them.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:02 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

In other words, while I agree this is preaching to the choir, it will probably reach some in the congregation as well, and, besides, the choir probably isn't as riled-up about this as they need to be.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:03 AM on October 4, 2013

I should add, despite my criticism of the commercial, I DO like that the focus is on Boehner, and not a just a general "Republicans" boogeyman.
posted by inigo2 at 11:04 AM on October 4, 2013

(Interestingly, it looks like they are targeting the ad at specific districts too, not just going after Boehner)
posted by Drinky Die at 11:06 AM on October 4, 2013

Hahahah, the Dems are attempting the discharge petition gambit. So glad they decided to take a chance and didn't let the naysayers dissuade them from trying.
posted by longdaysjourney at 11:08 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Destroying Boehner appears to be a necessary, if not exactly ungratifying, part of the process of getting things back on track. Here's hoping this business leaves him nuclear-grade toxic even for the GOP.
posted by Artw at 11:09 AM on October 4, 2013

the Dems are attempting the discharge petition gambit

"The upshot: Once the petition is filed, they will begin rounding up signatures from both Democrats and Republicans. If they can get 218 signatures, a House vote to reopen the government will happen."

And if it fails, then they have one more concrete example to show the country how Republicans are refusing to allow their colleagues to vote.
posted by inigo2 at 11:13 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Flunkie: "Am I remembering correctly that Alex Jones does actually believe in lizard people who control the world? And not in a metaphorical sense? Not necessarily Gorns, but close enough?

I got a doubt that I might be misremembering when I saw the subsequent comment about David Icke, who I'm pretty sure believes in lizard people who control the world, and not in a metaphorical sense. So now I think I might be conflating the two."

Yeah - you're conflating the two. Alex Jones believes in SATANIC POWERS! (And DMT-entranced communication with those dark evil powers!)

It's, like... totally different.
posted by symbioid at 11:22 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Worse than someone too stupid and cowardly not to close the Goverment down because of some hissy fit?
posted by Artw at 11:22 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

"We're not finished committing suicide here," said Republican strategist John Weaver, a veteran of the McCain and Huntsman campaigns. "We also have the opportunity to kill immigration reform, and the odds are that we will do that, just to make sure we're the angry-white-man party."
posted by lattiboy at 11:24 AM on October 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

longdaysjourney: "Hahahah, the Dems are attempting the discharge petition gambit. So glad they decided to take a chance and didn't let the naysayers dissuade them from trying."

Ahh, so they found a clean CR bill that was already filed. I wonder if one of them read my comment ;-) Could be enough leverage to persuade the Speaker to allow a vote. This is big news.
posted by exogenous at 11:24 AM on October 4, 2013 [6 favorites]

The Democrats are going to be running a not so subtle ad during football this weekend.

The baby is so sad and chubby.
posted by zennie at 11:25 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Worse than someone too stupid and cowardly not to close the Goverment down because of some hissy fit?

Like I said, name the magic Republican congressperson who could have avoided this once Cruz pulled his stunt. I can't think of any.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 11:26 AM on October 4, 2013

It's hard to imagine any Republican doing significantly better, but what is worse? Open insurrection? We're pretty far down the rabbit hole already.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:27 AM on October 4, 2013

(A)Ha(W)O, you're right that it doesn't really matter who's in the Speaker's chair, but the simple act of Boehner getting Fredo'd will look good for the blue team. There's a small chance that a Tea Party-ish replacement could acquit themselves well and put a better face on the GOP's efforts to dismantle government, but with the Democrats having the Senate majority and the veto pen, the amount of policy damage they could do is limited.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:29 AM on October 4, 2013

And what magical Republican do you see taking over as Speaker and doing a better job

Charlie Dent. (We can still dream, can't we.)
posted by Golden Eternity at 11:30 AM on October 4, 2013

Ahh, so they found a clean CR bill that was already filed.

And it's on a bill introduced by a Tea Partier. I feel like I've entered a parallel dimension where the Dems have balls. I'm really enjoying it here.

And for people who were worried about the underlying bill:

If Dems can get the 218 signatures on the discharge petition, then Dems would use a procedural move to replace the Lankford bill with an amendment: A clean CR, just like the one in the Senate. So this would not enshrine the one-percent-per-year reduction in spending, as does the Lankford measure.
posted by longdaysjourney at 11:30 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

*shrug* - If they are all equally awful just obliterate the one Cruz has a hold over, and let one without the baggage step in. I very much doubt they will be pulling this shit twice.

All it costs is the career of a spineless lizard.
posted by Artw at 11:30 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

i think the problem here is that if there was another election for speaker, the tea party would dig in its heels for its own candidate, pretty much making a majority impossible

who knows what would happen then?
posted by pyramid termite at 11:30 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Like I said, name the magic Republican congressperson who could have avoided this once Cruz pulled his stunt. I can't think of any.

Probably there isn't one. But I can't imagine someone, short of a Tea Party wingnut (who is unlikely to have the votes, especially after this), doing a worse job than Boehner.

Would the next guy be just as bad? Maybe. Probably, even. But if Boehner goes down, at the very least that would serve as warning to the next Speaker that there are consequences to kowtowing to the extremists all the time. That alone makes him worth targeting.
posted by breakin' the law at 11:32 AM on October 4, 2013

The baby is so sad and chubby.

I know. They should have found an uglier baby. Maybe one with a fake tan.
posted by emjaybee at 11:32 AM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

i think the problem here is that if there was another election for speaker, the tea party would dig in its heels for its own candidate, pretty much making a majority impossible. who knows what would happen then?

This is our concern, Dude.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 11:32 AM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

pyramid termite: " who knows what would happen then?"

Worth it for the 1 in 1 billion chance at a Louie Gohmert vs. Peter King diss rap battle.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:32 AM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

longdaysjourney: "And it's on a bill introduced by a Tea Partier. I feel like I've entered a parallel dimension where the Dems have balls. I'm really enjoying it here."

What is with that website and its awful banner image
posted by boo_radley at 11:34 AM on October 4, 2013

Jonathan Livengood: Exactly. Sorry if this wasn't obvious to everyone. Maybe if I had made the first demand be that all Republican governors resign?

I apologize for not noticing that your comment was in jest. I think my humor circuits are fried.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:36 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

who knows what would happen then?

Speaker of the House Pelosi. Which would be nuts in all the right ways.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:44 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

I think that ad is pretty damn tacky and it bothers me that the bar for talking sense with the public is set so low. And yet, I just picked up my lunch in a sandwich shop with the TV on, and that ad came on (right before I read about it here). A woman at a table started bursting out laughing when they identifed the baby as Boehner, and called the waitress over (I think the waitress is a friend of hers) saying "see that? The baby having a tantrum is Boehner!" They got a good chuckle out of it. I have no idea whether they were previously sympathetic, unsympathetic, or totally tuned out, but it got their attention. Maybe these things work.
posted by Miko at 11:45 AM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Ignoring the 1% cuts business, the Government Shutdown Prevention Act that they're using the discharge petition on seems like fantastic common sense. Can't pass a budget? Fine, everything stays status quo.

It'd be impossible for anyone to take the ball and go home, right? Or am I missing the horrible way this is going to back fire in another 10 years?
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 11:46 AM on October 4, 2013

I know everyone on here reads Media Matters anyway, but their article on the two totally dissimilar narratives for what the GOP/Fox News is putting out there is spot. On one hand, this is a "slimdown" and people are whinners, on the other hand, this is a tragedy and all Reid/Obama's fault.

As long as the Dems stick to their guns, the GOP will be ruined by this. There's not even a lost cause narrative they can say in retrospect. This is the charge of the light brigade, but less honor and heroism and more political opportunism and tantrums.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 11:48 AM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

It'd be impossible for anyone to take the ball and go home, right? Or am I missing the horrible way this is going to back fire in another 10 years?

The 1% cuts kind of are the problem. It provides a backdoor way for the GOP to get its cuts and not have to argue for them, too. What incentive would there ever be for the Republicans to negotiate over the budget if their primary concern - budget cuts - just automatically happened whenever they didn't?

That said, it's better than a shutdown and I'm glad the Dems are doing this.
posted by breakin' the law at 11:49 AM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

The 1% cuts kind of are the problem. It provides a backdoor way for the GOP to get its cuts and not have to argue for them, too. What incentive would there ever be for the Republicans to negotiate over the budget if their primary concern - budget cuts - just automatically happened whenever they didn't?

They strip out the 1% with an amendment. It won't be in the bill.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:50 AM on October 4, 2013

They strip out the 1% with an amendment. It won't be in the bill.

They have done that? Or they will? Could they get the 218 signatures without it?

[I'm legit curious.]
posted by breakin' the law at 11:54 AM on October 4, 2013

If they do a discharge petition on the Lankford bill, does it block a clean CR from passing before the bill "ripens"? Or can it be used as leverage to basically say "look, this is happening anyways in week or so, so just vote on the clean CR now and end the needless shutdown."?
posted by jason_steakums at 11:56 AM on October 4, 2013

WaPo says in the update on the bottom of the page that with 218 votes they can replace the bill with an amendment to make it a clean CR.
posted by Nonsteroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drug at 11:56 AM on October 4, 2013

Neugebauer image macro
posted by inigo2 at 12:11 PM on October 4, 2013 [8 favorites]

Possibly we could also get some sweet concessions on something we want if we rolled back women's right to vote and the laws against child labor, but we aren't going to do that either.

Hey, don't take away our negotiating power. After all, Republicans actually would like child labor laws rolled back. And women's right to vote, too.
posted by Flunkie at 12:26 PM on October 4, 2013

Obama is just showboating at this point.

Obama And Biden Go Out For Lunch
posted by Drinky Die at 12:26 PM on October 4, 2013 [12 favorites]

When asked why he and the vice president had gone out for lunch, President Obama told reporters, “Part of the reason we’re here is because we’re starving.

The other reason we’re here is that this establishment is giving 10% off to furloughed employees. This is an indication of how ordinary Americans are looking out for one another.”
posted by Drinky Die at 12:27 PM on October 4, 2013

The discharge bill is a neat way to (potentially) get around the current crisis, but won't we be here again in a couple weeks with the debt limit battle? For now it seems every day that passes is another day of the GOP making fools of themselves and potentially tearing apart their party. I don't see the longer term gains in the the Dems starting up the government this way now.
posted by wemayfreeze at 12:27 PM on October 4, 2013

I'm kind of speechless about the gif in that linked buzzfeed article.
posted by Peccable at 12:31 PM on October 4, 2013 [16 favorites]

When asked why he and the vice president had gone out for lunch, President Obama told reporters, “Part of the reason we’re here is because we’re starving.

The other reason we’re here is that this establishment is giving 10% off to furloughed employees. This is an indication of how ordinary Americans are looking out for one another.”

The 9th Street Italian is good there. Biden picked better.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:31 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Damn it, now I want some provolone. Not many sandwich shops around here offer it.
posted by emjaybee at 12:33 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yeah, I'm hungry now too, weird there are no Philly locations with that menu. :P
posted by Drinky Die at 12:35 PM on October 4, 2013

I really love this President. Lunch and solidarity with hard working people who aren't being paid. Done and done.
posted by bearwife at 12:37 PM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

I assume that one of the reasons they went out is that the White House food service menu is greatly reduced right now.
posted by gsteff at 12:39 PM on October 4, 2013

emjaybee: "Damn it, now I want some provolone. Not many sandwich shops around here offer it."

What kind of cheese and sandwich shop hellscape do you live in? How is that even possible?
posted by boo_radley at 12:40 PM on October 4, 2013 [21 favorites]

Damn it, now I want some provolone. Not many sandwich shops around here offer it.

... Subway has it. What?
posted by kafziel at 12:41 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

I don't count Subway (bleh), and in Texas, it's cheddar/swiss/monterey jack and that's about it at most places. Maybe mozzarella on an Italian.

Uh, sorry for that derail. Back to the shutdown....
posted by emjaybee at 12:44 PM on October 4, 2013

Obama is just showboating at this point.

I don't know, considering the Capitol was locked down yesterday, thousands terrified, I think taking a stroll out for lunch is a pretty thoughtful move.
posted by thinkpiece at 12:45 PM on October 4, 2013 [12 favorites]

Emjaybee, a shutdown ends eventually. You're living in a nightmare that is of much longer concern. You deserve provolone, especially in a state as big as Texas. This isn't the 5th century. Everyone deserves standard cheese choices.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:46 PM on October 4, 2013 [16 favorites]

Suggest rename to "Freedom Cheese".
posted by Artw at 12:48 PM on October 4, 2013 [11 favorites]

Emjaybee, grew up in Fort Worth. Carshon's Deli. That is all. Carry on.
posted by hillabeans at 12:53 PM on October 4, 2013

Obama: "This shutdown could be over today. We know there are the votes."

Aw yeah.

... Subway has it. What?

So there's provolone, and then there's provolone. Which I was recently reminded when I had a great broccoli raab-and-provolone sandwich in Providence at Venda Ravioli. That provolone was thick-sliced off the round, crumbly, sharp, tangy, and real in a way I hadn't tasted in a long time.

Also, Subway and local sandwich shop are really different things as well. It's nice to have the Provolone option on a sandwich without being beholden to the world of Subway's predictable menu.
posted by Miko at 12:55 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

unfortunately i think freedom cheese is prolly the orange kind that comes in a can
posted by elizardbits at 12:55 PM on October 4, 2013 [7 favorites]

Thank you all for your cheese-based concern.
posted by emjaybee at 12:55 PM on October 4, 2013 [12 favorites]

Rep. Jim McDermott on Dem strategy against GOP: "We sit here until they figure out they f**kin’ lost."
posted by Drinky Die at 12:56 PM on October 4, 2013 [12 favorites]

emjaybee: "Thank you all for your cheese-based concern."

We're you're friends and we want you to be happy. Can we send you anything?
posted by boo_radley at 12:58 PM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

Let's take a cheese related intermission. Now back to our regularly scheduled discussion.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:01 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

unfortunately i think freedom cheese is prolly the orange kind that comes in a can

That stuff's great for getting my dog to take her pills.

Rep. Jim McDermott on Dem strategy against GOP: "We sit here until they figure out they f**kin’ lost."

I do wish Dems would avoid the "win/lose" language. Leave that to the republicans, and keep a constant "this is not a game" message going.
posted by inigo2 at 1:05 PM on October 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

McDermott didn't publish that comment, though perhaps he should be careful who he talks to. Reportedly he made that comment to Dave Weigel, who tweeted it.
posted by bearwife at 1:09 PM on October 4, 2013

…it might cost him his job and I'm worried about who the next Speaker would be. I can see it being a lot worse than it already is.

Maybe that's the long-term plan. Let the extremists overthrow the Republican party, utterly destroying it. The Dems become the new right, and Occupy becomes the new left. Balance finally restored.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:12 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

unfortunately i think freedom cheese is prolly the orange kind that comes in a can

Boehnerkäse?
posted by jason_steakums at 1:15 PM on October 4, 2013 [11 favorites]

Maybe that's the long-term plan. Let the extremists overthrow the Republican party, utterly destroying it. The Dems become the new right, and Occupy becomes the new left. Balance finally restored.

Ha, I'm not sure if consensus-based anarchists are the best choice for a new American left, but I take your point
posted by showbiz_liz at 1:16 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Better than non-consensus-based anarchists on the right, n'est-ce pas?
posted by Rykey at 1:31 PM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

With regard to yesterday's events I feel like if this had happened in, say, New York or Los Angeles or Chicago we'd be scrutinizing whether the cops had to fire thirty bullets at a mentally ill mother with a one year old child in the car. It's not at all clear to me that deadly force needed to be used here...
posted by Justinian at 1:32 PM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

The Dems become the new right, and Occupy becomes the new left. Balance finally restored.

I think, if balance were restored, the Dems would look more centrist than right. It's like, if you ranked the parties on a conservative-to-liberal scale, where 0 points is the the tetra-headed love-child of Ayn Rand and Pat Robertson, and 100 points is the Barack Obama character that exists in Rush Limbaugh's imagination, the Democrats are like 52 and the Republicans are like 5. Also, Occupy never seemed very interested in electoral politics.

Still, point taken.
posted by breakin' the law at 1:32 PM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

She ran over a secret service agent, and tried to run through the barricade to the congress building. The officers couldn't have known that she had mental problems, or probably that there was an infant in the car. Sadly, I think the response was justified.
posted by askmehow at 1:37 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Justinian: "It's not at all clear to me that deadly force needed to be used here..."

A high speed car chase in a crowded city is equivalent to someone firing random shots into a crowd. The chances of someone being seriously injured or killed directly by her car or indirectly by someone swerving to avoid her car (she ran several red lights) are pretty high.

Carey's mental illness may be an explanation for her actions, but it's not a justification for them when they went from "causing a disturbance" to "threatening the lives of innocent people." There's still a lot we don't know about this, but given what we do know, I find it hard to fault cops who took steps to neutralize the danger she was causing to innocent bystanders.
posted by tonycpsu at 1:39 PM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

Also: the Navy Yard massacre of, what, two weeks ago? That was a mile and a half away.
posted by troika at 1:39 PM on October 4, 2013

Justinian: "With regard to yesterday's events I feel like if this had happened in, say, New York or Los Angeles or Chicago we'd be scrutinizing whether the cops had to fire thirty bullets at a mentally ill mother with a one year old child in the car. It's not at all clear to me that deadly force needed to be used here..."

Mmm, maybe to you, but not necessarily to others. (I'm with you, I'm just saying that there are other people who might think differently on the matter).
posted by symbioid at 1:43 PM on October 4, 2013

Her car hit the bollard closest to a family member's office, in an area with a lot of pedestrians, especially children, lower level cafes, etc. Generally speaking, people who do dumb stuff at the White House do not get shot (look at firecracker guy,) but she was in the position of causing a lot of damage and potentially the loss of life. It's a sad story all around.
posted by jetlagaddict at 1:43 PM on October 4, 2013

"With regard to yesterday's events I feel like if this had happened in, say, New York or Los Angeles or Chicago we'd be scrutinizing whether the cops had to fire thirty bullets at a mentally ill mother with a one year old child in the car. It's not at all clear to me that deadly force needed to be used here..

The front entrance of the White House at 15th and E isn't LA or Chicago. She literally ran over an officer there, then sped directly towards the Capitol, then when cornered by officers with drawn weapons, almost ran over another officer, rammed a second police car, then attempted to speed off again. It is the definition of imminent threat to the lives of many others.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:48 PM on October 4, 2013 [8 favorites]

Reports of someone lighting themselves on fire on the Mall are showing up on my twitter feed.
posted by troika at 1:52 PM on October 4, 2013

And what magical Republican do you see taking over as Speaker and doing a better job (read: more efficient and/or more amenable to Democratic interests) than Boehner? I don't think the guy is much of a moderate, but he's in a tough position. Yeah, I think he should fall on his sword and do the right thing here, but I also realize it might cost him his job and I'm worried about who the next Speaker would be. I can see it being a lot worse than it already is.

There is two potential kinda beneficial outcomes here: If a deal was made amongst less extreme republicans and Democrats for a R candidate that could get at least 18 R votes and all D votes then you'd have a non TP speaker.

or the burn it down strategy

That is completely destroy Boehner politically so he is challenged. The next speaker will not be better in the sense he will be more willing to work with the Ds, BUT he would be better in that his political motivations will be clear and unambiguous, unlike Boehner who tends to say one thing and ends up having to do something else, and, will paint the republicans in a light that might make it more difficult to win elections. If you push them to live their values in the corner it makes the middle ground bigger for Democrats, until mainstream Republicans actually confront the rot problem.

It really is kind of nasty politics under cover. And given the sheer poison that has arisen the last 6 years I can't completely condemn it.
posted by edgeways at 1:53 PM on October 4, 2013

Tea Party Leaders Announce Support For Deal In Exchange For Malia Obama

While members of the Republican Party’s far-right wing have heretofore been resistant to any sort of deal with the White House over the issue of Obamacare, the Tea Party caucus authored and released a short, tersely worded statement this morning in which they agreed to a swift negotiation of an unstipulated spending bill if the president were to deliver “the firstling.”
posted by Drinky Die at 1:57 PM on October 4, 2013 [22 favorites]

Washington City Paper blog has a bit about the Mall.
posted by emjaybee at 1:57 PM on October 4, 2013

it bothers me that the bar for talking sense with the public is set so low.

you are not a facebook user, i presume.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 1:58 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

I am but I have cut my participation down to a small, decent-thinking bubble.
posted by Miko at 2:00 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Hahaha, classy NPR.

I'm on Google News, and I see the following two NPR headlines right next to each other:

"Internal GOP divisions exposed, might lead to compromise"
PBS NewsHour

"Does increasing division of rebel groups benefit the Assad regime?"
PBS
posted by symbioid at 2:01 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

“It is the view of every Republican in this body, and indeed every Republican in the House, that Obamacare should be entirely and completely repealed. Nonetheless, the House started with a compromise of saying, not repealing Obamacare, but simply that it should be defunded.”

Haha, wow, what a compromise-- nice kneecaps you got there, shame if something happened to your healthcare, hunh?
posted by jetlagaddict at 2:01 PM on October 4, 2013

Weird aside, I just left my job contracting to the federal government last week and I'm in the process of handing over my work to my colleagues that stayed on. It's weird to me that the contractors are still there and getting paid, but the actual employees we work with at the department are furloughed.
posted by askmehow at 2:06 PM on October 4, 2013

The real compromise is a TWO MONTH continuing resolution, guaranteeing that even if the Debt Ceiling bullet is dodged, we'll be right back here just in time for the holidays. This is not going to be over (not the shutdown but the whole crisis) until after the 2014 elections at the earliest (and only if the GOP suffers a bloodbath in those elections).
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:06 PM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

DCist: "A Metropolitan Police Department spokesperson said that officers were dispatched to "reports of a man on fire" and that "he is conscious and breathing." D.C. Fire and EMS spokesman Tim Wilson said units were dispatched to the call at 4:24 p.m. and arrived three minutes later. The patient was taken by helicopter to an area hospital, he said. "
posted by inigo2 at 2:07 PM on October 4, 2013

It's weird to me that the contractors are still there and getting paid, but the actual employees we work with at the department are furloughed.

Well, it's your former employer who isn't getting paid even though he continues supporting his employees. I suspect Management there is sweating in a similar-but-less-urgent way the furloughed employees are.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:09 PM on October 4, 2013

the House started with a compromise of saying, not repealing Obamacare, but simply that it should be defunded.

If you defunded the ACA, would you even need to put the time and energy into repealing it?
posted by Rykey at 2:12 PM on October 4, 2013

In Canada you can be charged with assault with a deadly weapon if you intentionally hit someone with your car. Car-Pedestrian interactions often result in the pedestrian dying so it's not a stretch at all to consider a car being driven into people a weapon.
posted by Mitheral at 2:13 PM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

If she was unarmed, then deadly force should not be used, period.

she was in possession of a deadly weapon - her car
posted by pyramid termite at 2:14 PM on October 4, 2013 [10 favorites]

If she was unarmed, then deadly force should not be used, period. We just train our cops to be sociopaths and hop them up on steriods.

When does a car driver count as "armed"? Imho the car needs to be free to move. If you've pinned them in, as you should try to do, rhen you've effectively disarmed them. Also if the car is in motion then you must evaluate if the stray bullets or car pose more risk, usually the billets do.

A car is a deadly weapon. Not only do people accidentally hit others with a car killing them, but they also deliberately kill others by running them over with a vehicle. This woman targeted people with her vehicle, doing so in such a way that made not just officers, but everyone else in the country think that she might threaten the President and members of Congress.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:15 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yeah, because a future congress could come along and re-fund it.

That said, the whole reason defunding was the strategy, Ted "Dumbass" Cruz, is because Congress holds the purse-strings. It's what you guys do, constitutionally (remember, you carry that somewhere in your little pocket, right? Just... you know, keep digging for it, if you can't find it, I'm sure it's there *somewhere*).

Anyways, you would think that defunding ACA would be easier to do, since it's a constitutional path that they have access to, in order to blocking implementation of said Law.

Not that reversing it isn't possible, constitutionally, but that's a longer term goal and much harder (shit - you're having a hell of a time trying to get it defunded, let alone repealed).

So, yeah, it's a "compromise" because that's your best shot at trying to stop it that even has a sliver of a chance (and that's requiring a complete and utter shut-down of the United States government because you can't have your way).
posted by symbioid at 2:16 PM on October 4, 2013

I'm usually not on the side of the cops in shootings, but this was one of those situations where I'm not sure what else they could have done. Maybe there is a better way to handle a wildly driving motorist causing that much danger than shooting them, but it's not obvious that there is.

I can still feel plenty of anger that this woman didn't get the mental health care she needed and so her life was ended and her child's put at grave risk. That part isn't the fault of the cops, though.
posted by emjaybee at 2:17 PM on October 4, 2013 [20 favorites]

jeffburdges: "If you've pinned them in, as you should try to do, then you've effectively disarmed them."

Have you watched the video? This is one of the rare cases where the cops' action wasn't over the top or unnecessary.

On preview: what emjaybee said.
posted by Hairy Lobster at 2:19 PM on October 4, 2013

jeffburdges: "If you've pinned them in, as you should try to do, then you've effectively disarmed them."

Have you watched the video? This is one of the rare cases where the cops' action wasn't over the top or unnecessary.

On preview: what emjaybee said.

If you see the video, they thought they had her pinned in. They could have shot her at point blank range at that second, but they thought they had her trapped by a car. She put the car in reverse, put the pedal to the floor and did a turn, knocking the police car back. She then aimed her car at a police officer who jumped out of the way at the last second and she drove off. They then opened fire.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:22 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

I haven't seen the video, not possible here. I clearly noted that cars are frequently deadly weapons, like when they haven't been pinned down somehow, just depends on the situation.
posted by jeffburdges at 2:24 PM on October 4, 2013

i blame nader
posted by pyramid termite at 2:24 PM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

I haven't seen the video

I mean.....
posted by inigo2 at 2:25 PM on October 4, 2013 [15 favorites]

It's certainly a horrible tragedy for all involved regardless.
posted by Artw at 2:27 PM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Metafilter: I Have No Idea What Is Going On Here But Let Me Tell You My Opinion Anyway
posted by elizardbits at 2:28 PM on October 4, 2013 [41 favorites]

DrinkyDie's Onion link was funny, but also made me profoundly uncomfortable. Somehow, satire about the first daughters always comes across to me as crossing a line. But, see, I'm old and sometimes can't judge funny anymore.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:28 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yeah, could we please have a DIFFERENT thread dealing with yesterdays tragic shooting? This is confusing and annoying in here.
posted by lattiboy at 2:29 PM on October 4, 2013 [12 favorites]

she was in possession of a deadly weapon - her car

Exhibit A: what happened after an argument in Manchester, UK, in August 2012... no one died, but all three men were very badly injured. The driver has just been convicted of attempted murder... the cctv is graphic
posted by Mister Bijou at 2:29 PM on October 4, 2013

"What is happening in America is that [the social contract underlying its government] is being voided, largely through the initiative of rightwing Republicans from the deep South and rural Midwest. America is not likely to become Afghanistan, but it could easily become Italy or Greece or even Weimar Germany."

In a little bit of foreign news, Berlusconi recently tried to scupper the coalition government by withdrawing the ministers from his party, but there was a revolt against the move and Letta survived. Berlusconi is also likely to be expelled from the Senate after a vote today, and begin his sentence for tax fraud in a couple of weeks. Il Buffone is politically dead and hopefully Italy is entering a new era of grownup politics. It's like some kind of mirror image world going on.
posted by Thing at 2:33 PM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

I haven't seen the video, not possible here. I clearly noted that cars are frequently deadly weapons, like when they haven't been pinned down somehow, just depends on the situation.

Watch it. They try to do exactly as you suggest, pin her in and not fire at her despite the fact they are literally at point blank range. She gets out anyway.
posted by Ironmouth at 2:34 PM on October 4, 2013

These Tea Party folks are really good at spinning their own web of reality. I just had to read two posts that blew my mind. Thought I would share:

"I think she's half-right that Democrats and Obama are prolonging the shutdown. Republicans started this whole mess by using really stupid tactics that have totally backfired. But now that the GOP is taking the heat in the media and the public for the shutdown, the Democrats and the Obama administration will try to prolong the shutdown and make it as painful and visible as possible. There's a lot that could be done just in the executive branch to ease the effects of the shutdown, as was done in the past, but they're refusing to do anything because of partisan political motives."

"You realize most of these 40 right wing wackos were voted in during 2010 almost solely because of their opposition to Obamacare? If there wasn't public opposition to the bill, they would never have been put into office.

The House is totally within their rights to do this, they created a funding bill that had all the money needed to run the entire government with the exception of Obamacare, so how are they responsible for the shutdown? The bill, if passed by the Senate, would have avoided a shutdown. And the White House isn't doing their job, and is instead making the shutdown as painful as possible instead of trying to mitigate the issue. They're even asking for shutdown sob stories right now on their web site, which for some reason is considered an essential function.

Now if I was the GOP, I would taken a different tact and just attacked specific provisions in the bill and not the entire thing. Like you could easily get rid of the medical device tax with bipartisan support, for example."

"I'll make it real simple and go slow, Obama heads up something called the Executive Branch. This is separate from the Legislature and the fight that's going on over funding bills, by design. He and his administration are responsible for the day-to-day functioning of the government and all its billion agencies. He should be judged on how well the government is run, despite whatever bullshit Congress is up to. If Congress fails to pass funding, it is the purpose of the Executive to try to keep things up and running as long as possible. It's my opinion that the White House has completely failed to do this, and is in fact colluding with the Senate to prolong the shutdown, which is the antithesis to what it's supposed to be doing, and goes against the intent of our government and system of checks and balances."
posted by RedShrek at 2:46 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

So... separate from by design, yet ultimately responsible for? Got it.
posted by Rykey at 2:50 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

it is the purpose of the Executive to try to keep things up and running as long as possible. It's my opinion that the White House has completely failed to do this, and is in fact colluding with the Senate to prolong the shutdown, which is the antithesis to what it's supposed to be doing, and goes against the intent of our government and system of checks and balances."

there's a law called the anti-deficiency act that prevents the executive from keeping anything running. I litigate against the U.S. Government nearly exclusively. They can't even negotiate right now.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:06 PM on October 4, 2013 [6 favorites]

30 ways in which the shutdown is already screwing people.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 3:06 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Ever ready for epic right wing shitstorm. The dead woman claimed that Obama was the baby daddy and was stalking her.
posted by humanfont at 3:10 PM on October 4, 2013

No fucking way
posted by exogenous at 3:12 PM on October 4, 2013

Sweatin' to the Oldies: Vince Foster 2.0 Edition
posted by tonycpsu at 3:13 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Gawker: Man Reportedly Sets Self on Fire at D.C.'s National Mall

Fuck man. This week.
posted by rosswald at 3:25 PM on October 4, 2013

I have high anxiety that that Obama will give up the Keystone Pipeline as a way of getting this over with.
posted by angrycat at 3:26 PM on October 4, 2013

Ever ready for epic right wing shitstorm. The dead woman claimed that Obama was the baby daddy and was stalking her.

FWD: re: RE: Fwd: Re: Fwd: The NEWS the #MSM doesn't want YOU to HEAR
posted by inigo2 at 3:26 PM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

QOTD: Dennis Ross (R-Pirate Party)

Dennis Ross (R-FL-Pirate):
“We’ve lost the CR battle,” Ross, referring to the continuing resolution to authorize government spending, said in an interview. “We need to move on and take whatever we can find in the debt limit.”
"Take whatever we can find." Are these people legislators or highwaymen?

Media like Bloomberg.com are presenting this quote as straightforward politics, a sign that even Tea Partiers are relenting on the shutdown as they look forward to the debt ceiling.

What they should be reporting on is the political dynamic on display. The Republicans took the government hostage, and Democrats didn't back down. So the Republicans "lost" that "battle." Now they're taking the debt limit hostage and hoping that Democrats will pay the ransom on that, instead.

It must be said again: if Democrats were shutting down the government and threatening the full faith and credit of the United States in order to force a Republican president to pass gun control and tax increases, Republicans would be calling Democrats terrorists holding the nation hostage. They would be accusing the left of treason and threatening armed revolt and murder in the streets. The press would perforce take up some of that language in their reporting.

posted by zombieflanders at 3:32 PM on October 4, 2013 [12 favorites]

huh. a bunch of TP Congressmen said that this is not about the ACA anymore? What the hell is this about then?
posted by angrycat at 3:33 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Soiled underwear?

I dunno, seems as rational as anything else they say nowadays.
posted by edgeways at 3:35 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

“We’ve lost the CR battle,” Ross, referring to the continuing resolution to authorize government spending, said in an interview. “We need to move on and take whatever we can find in the debt limit.”

Welp it'll be interesting to see how many times Boehner flip flops on THIS issue. I think we're already up to once or twice if we count his spokesman.
posted by edgeways at 3:36 PM on October 4, 2013

news flash - black knight elected as speaker of the house - "he has the experience we need right now"
posted by pyramid termite at 3:38 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

huh. a bunch of TP Congressmen said that this is not about the ACA anymore? What the hell is this about then?

They demanded a cookie. They did not get a cookie. Now they want a different cookie.
posted by Artw at 3:46 PM on October 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

The Weather Service is having a laugh.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:47 PM on October 4, 2013 [12 favorites]

Ha. No exception for Issa's "Fast and Furious" lawsuit:

There are no exigent circumstances in this case that would justify an order of the Court forcing furloughed attorneys to return to their desks. Moreover, while the vast majority of litigants who now must endure a delay in the progress of their matters do so due to circumstances beyond their control, that cannot be said of the House of Representatives, which has played a role in the shutdown that prompted the stay motion.

posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 3:50 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

you know, if this were just a matter of Boehner not wanting to lose his job, wouldn't it be pretty easy to, you know, I don't know, toss him a million and he would go away? But then the crazies elect one of their own, I guess, so, oh well.
posted by angrycat at 3:56 PM on October 4, 2013

angrycat, it's not about money, it's about power - it always is
posted by pyramid termite at 4:02 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

I would not want to go toe-to-toe with the GOP on the size of my available slush fund.
posted by Artw at 4:05 PM on October 4, 2013

Maybe to get provolone into Texas, we just have to put it in their language.
posted by Flunkie at 4:06 PM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

jesus, as per folks on Diane Rehm show, 70-80% of the policy people at the Pentagon are furloughed. People working on Syria/the Middle East in general/ every other fucking thing. We doing a real shitty job of being a world power.
posted by angrycat at 4:22 PM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

GOP Donors (consider a) Revolt Against Republican-Led Government Shutdown
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:26 PM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

The men putting out the fire were passersby, she said, and one of them told her that the man had "saluted the Capitol and then lit himself on fire."
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 4:37 PM on October 4, 2013

In case you haven't watched the Colbert performed wedding linked by roomthreeseventeen, do yourself a favor and watch it.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:57 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

“When you have a small segment who dictate to the rest of the party, the result is what we have seen in the last two days,” she said. “People need to stand up and not be afraid of the...”

Let me just leave it there and let decide whether "Tea Party" or "rich fuckheads" comes after the ellipses.
posted by indubitable at 5:13 PM on October 4, 2013

Insane Fox News reporter "explains" Obamacare in Star Trek Gorn mask

Clearly those guys are on a Gold Plated plan, and have been prescribed the good shit. Hopefully, they might operate some heavy machinery later.
posted by Hello, I'm David McGahan at 5:15 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

On Thursday, unfurlough.us went live. It's a site designed to help connect workers who've been left out in the cold by the government shutdown connect with private sector companies in need of temporary help. As of Friday afternoon, 36 jobs were listed under the "gigs" heading, while 26 furloughed job seekers had signed up as "freelancers."
posted by madamjujujive at 5:22 PM on October 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

Miriam Carey was prone to making outrageous and obviously nutty statements such as claiming the government was monitoring all her electronic communications.
posted by humanfont at 5:49 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

The recent NYTimes article about Steve King's district in Iowa is pretty good. It seems that folks there are angry about gubmint spending and all but aren't in general as crazy as he is...
posted by localhuman at 5:52 PM on October 4, 2013

metatalk
posted by ryanrs at 5:55 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

This has got to be the weirdest shutdown story: Ku Klux Klan to meet in Gettysburg after shutdown thwarts battlefield plan
posted by Artw at 6:04 PM on October 4, 2013

I'm in Steve King's district...FYI. I'm pretty sure I am as crazy as he is, but in a much less bigoted way.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:04 PM on October 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

VikingSword: ""Scientific evidence shows that SNAP is a wise investment in the brains and bodies of American children, an investment that should be increased, not curtailed," stressed Frank.""

Wasn't SNAP originally a direct response to the armed forces having to turn away recruits because they were too malnourished as children to make good soldiers?
posted by Mitheral at 6:09 PM on October 4, 2013 [4 favorites]

I'm a little bit angry now so I'll take a break after sharing this. But What the everliving Fuck. Is. Wrong. With. People. These. Days?

Metafilter excepted of course~
posted by localhuman at 6:18 PM on October 4, 2013

That New York Times piece gives me vertigo. I currently work about 100 yards from Steffen Schmidt, knew him as an undergraduate, and listen to him often on IPR. I worked in the same building as him when I was a student worker some 20 years ago, and ran into him a few weeks back and had the "Remember me?" conversation (he did).

I worked with Kathie Obradovich from the time she was hired at the Register until recently. I saw her nearly every day for years and years and years.

I grew up in Sioux City and now live in Ames. I half expected to see my dad or someone quoted in that story.
posted by cjorgensen at 6:21 PM on October 4, 2013

25 Local Front Pages That Show How The Government Shutdown Is Hurting Regular Americans Buzzfeed link, blah - but it is pretty interesting to see these from all over the country.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:33 PM on October 4, 2013

I'm getting pretty frustrated with healthcare.gov. The traffic excuse is wearing thin after a few days and 10 different error situations that have prevented me from creating an account every time. This is worse than an MMO on launch day. Having the site be a bit of debacle is an unfortunate mistake.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:46 PM on October 4, 2013

Is anyone actually able to work on it?
posted by Artw at 6:49 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Are the people managing healthcare.gov essential employees?

localhuman: "The recent NYTimes article about Steve King's district in Iowa is pretty good."

So he's anti gay marriage, disaster aid, science, food safety; pro racial profiling, cock and dog fighting, and small government; and Boehner has described some of his comments on immigration as hateful and ignorant.

Wow. Just Wow. He's like a villain's villain.

And Iowa is a net beneficiary of federal funds vs revenue.

The mind boggles at the dissonance.
posted by Mitheral at 6:50 PM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

And Iowa is a net beneficiary of federal funds vs revenue.

Of course, it's a red state.

All conservatives a pro-goverment spending when it directly benefits them, what they're really upset about is the thought that the money might end up helping someone else.
posted by Artw at 7:27 PM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

Artw: "This has got to be the weirdest shutdown story: Ku Klux Klan to meet in Gettysburg after shutdown thwarts battlefield plan"

You haven't been listening to me, son. This is the new Klan...

Jesus, Mr. Show called.
posted by symbioid at 7:45 PM on October 4, 2013 [2 favorites]

PLEASE PAY US
posted by tonycpsu at 7:48 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

Drinky Die: "I'm getting pretty frustrated with healthcare.gov. The traffic excuse is wearing thin after a few days and 10 different error situations that have prevented me from creating an account every time. This is worse than an MMO on launch day. Having the site be a bit of debacle is an unfortunate mistake."

Every time I've tried to access it I've absolutely no problem - it loaded just fine for me right now. Weird. Wonder if they have multiples hosts that it's routing to and you're getting a shitty one or what. Woops - I see - you have to click further into it not just the main page. I thought it was more like a 404.
posted by symbioid at 7:49 PM on October 4, 2013

Of course, it's a red state.

Iowa? Nope. It is a state in transition, tho - and the right wing will radicalize more and more as they're marginalized. King is a symptom of a rural state becoming an urban state.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:50 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Healthcare.gov works okay for me, but the New York site is still f'ed.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 7:51 PM on October 4, 2013

angrycat: "huh. a bunch of TP Congressmen said that this is not about the ACA anymore? What the hell is this about then?"

Honestly? Saving face. They originally targeted Obamacare because it's the most hated manifestation of Obama's presidency, but now that that's clearly out of reach and they're all on the brink for nothing, they refuse to back down without getting something, anything, to justify themselves, to tell themselves they've won. It's about overweening pride and an adamant refusal to be publicly humiliated by that man.

Or as that Indiana state senator said, "We’re not going to be disrespected [...] We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is."
posted by Rhaomi at 7:55 PM on October 4, 2013 [11 favorites]

Maybe they could be appeased with gumballs and some coupons for Bennigan's?
posted by Talez at 8:00 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

So he's anti [...] disaster aid

Oh ho ho no. Just like any wingnut, Steve King's anti other people getting disaster aid. He was going off on the President 24/7 during the 2011 Missouri River flood, which was all up in his district. Skip to 1:30 in the (autoplaying, sorry!) video here for some choice photo-opping. Note that at the time, the situation was that individual FEMA aid wasn't forthcoming yet because it was an ongoing event and they couldn't accurately estimate how many needed it - and he still decided to slap on the old hip waders and unnecessarily stand in knee-deep floodwater a foot from the road to berate the President on camera. Because it's not about the aid with King, it's not about principles, it's about Steve King getting attention with some limp, rote "tough talk". I've met him a handful of times and he oozes a skeeviness that somehow, bafflingly, people read as charm.

In that NYT piece, outside of cjorgensen's colleague they focused mostly on residents of Sioux Center for opinions. Sioux Center as a whole is like 7,000 people in a district of 580,000+. Why Sioux Center? It's in Sioux County, the most Steve King-loving county in his district. The rest of the district is still his to lose, his opponents will have an uphill battle, but they're not nearly as in love with the guy elsewhere as they are in Sioux County. The NYT article gives a false impression - I live here and yeah, preeetty conservative place, but as much as you'd imagine when you think "Steve King's district".

For instance: Obama visited a bar in Sioux City after a speech at Morningside College campus during the last election, a little divey wings & pizza, sports & Fox News on all the TVs place called the Point After. Nobody who was in there ahead of time knew he was coming until it happened, it was the regular crowd. The consensus among the patrons after he left? notbad.jpg all around. I didn't hear a bad thing said after they met the guy in person, not even from the die-hard Paulites I knew who were there. A couple blocks away someone had their house unironically decked out in Reagan/Bush '84 signage, a large number of Ron Paul signs were still up well after he lost the nomination, barely an Obama sign in sight on any of the other houses - mine actually got swiped, I lived about 3 blocks from there at the time - and that neighborhood's regulars met the guy and he charmed the lot of 'em. It's a winnable district for the Dems with enough focus.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:08 PM on October 4, 2013 [3 favorites]

(And white woman Obama would face crazy opposition featuring massive amounts of misogyny instead of racism. Haters are lazy and predictable.)

As a woman, I'm actually pretty worried about how bad things might get if Hilary were elected. Women have had a pretty shitty time from the Tea Party as it is, I don't want to see what kind of misogynistic foaming-at-the-mouth rage they're capable of if one were to actually become president.
posted by triggerfinger at 8:14 PM on October 4, 2013 [7 favorites]

I predict that the Republican party is going to suffer a tremendous defeat in state elections in Virginia in a few weeks as a result of this shutdown. The state GOP went full tea party this year and the Democrats smell blood on the shutdown.
posted by humanfont at 8:16 PM on October 4, 2013 [6 favorites]

Of course, it's a red state.

Iowa is almost the epitome of a purple state. It's where Obama got his first primary win and I believe he won the state both prez election times. IA legalized gay marriage though judicial process and really hasn't done much to reverse it.
posted by edgeways at 9:13 PM on October 4, 2013 [5 favorites]

And without that first upset victory over Hillary and Edwards, it seems quite unlikely he would be our President today.

Barack Obama wins the Iowa caucuses over Hillary Clinton, John Edwards

Iowa is 95% white and Obama is the first black candidate to win a presidential primary with a majority of white voters.
[...]
White voters saw in Obama not his race but gauzy icons of the past.

"I have not seen, not since Roosevelt and the Kennedys, such honest hope for America," said Mona Paul, 76, of rural Atlantic explaining why she voted for Obama.
[...]
Entrance polls also show Obama beat Clinton among women 35% to 30%.
[...]
In the final day of the campaign, there were reminders that the contest was more than just an entertaining political horse race.

As Edwards left a stop in Cedar Rapids, schoolteacher Kristie Steepleton told him her 63-year-old mother had just died of colon cancer because she had no health insurance to pay for treatment. Edwards grabbed her in a bear hug and held her for a minute as she wept, whispering in her ear and resting his chin on her head.

posted by Golden Eternity at 9:38 PM on October 4, 2013

Dice: Lockheed Martin has identified 3,000 employees who will be furloughed beginning Monday as a result of the federal government shutdown, according to an internal memo from CEO Marillyn Hewson.

In addition to the furloughed employees, Lockheed is planning to lay off workers who were assigned to projects where a contract has ended and its follow-up agreements cancelled due to the shutdown, a Lockheed source, who requested anonymity, told Dice News.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:43 PM on October 4, 2013

"IA legalized gay marriage though judicial process and really hasn't done much to reverse it."

Except to run vicious recall campaigns against the judges that did it.
posted by klangklangston at 9:55 PM on October 4, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yes, which is part of the purpleness. No one is saying IA is deep blue, but by the same token it certainly isn't deep red. The judicials where recalled, but there hasn't been a credible push to change the state's constitution so that gay marriage would be illegal.
posted by edgeways at 10:00 PM on October 4, 2013

And, uh, even deep blue California had it's Prop 8
posted by edgeways at 10:03 PM on October 4, 2013

Except to run vicious recall campaigns against the judges that did it.

A lot of the funding for this, if not most of it, came from out-of-state.

Groups that wanted the justices ousted poured more than $650,000 into their effort, with heavy support from out of state conservative and religious groups.
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:04 PM on October 4, 2013

I just always like to note that when it comes up that in our newsroom system at work, the name of the guy who lead the charge on the Iowa gay marriage judge recall, Bob Vander Plaats, always triggers the autocorrect suggestion "Bob Underpants".
posted by jason_steakums at 10:07 PM on October 4, 2013 [24 favorites]

Obama's no-show at Asia summits a lost chance to buttress US influence
posted by Drinky Die at 12:38 AM on October 5, 2013

Somehow knowing that he is called Bob Underpants by autocorrect makes the threat of global economic collapse just a little more bearable.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:38 AM on October 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

Iowa presidential election history. With only a few exceptions (e.g. FDR), Republican from before the civil war to after the civil rights era; since '92 only Republican once, during Bush's second-term win. Obama's 2012 margin in Iowa (5.8%) was in fact greater than his popular vote margin nationally (under 4%). Still, that left it one of the ten closest states (because so much more of the Democratic vote was in solidly blue states).
posted by dhartung at 3:06 AM on October 5, 2013

Obama's no-show at Asia summits a lost chance to buttress US influence

And keep in mind, this is a high visibility example. There are other smaller international meetings that were supposed to happen, whether involving the President or other heads of departments expected to play a large international role, that have been either canceled or went on without US participation. [Sorry, no cites, cause I shouldn't.]
posted by inigo2 at 4:48 AM on October 5, 2013

You know, the Republican narrative (that this is a result of Ds failure to compromise) has that quality of a lie so outrageous it works in part because it is so outrageous -- I mean, I am having a real hard time empathizing with those who have decided to completely lie about what is going on in service of no discernible benefit, outside of getting Obama.

It sort of reminds me of the video Walt makes in the last season of BB.
posted by angrycat at 5:06 AM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

^ (meaning I just can't understand the mentality here. I mean, yeah, if somebody is holding your family hostage, lie your ass off. But this?)
posted by angrycat at 5:08 AM on October 5, 2013

Drinky Die: "Obama's no-show at Asia summits a lost chance to buttress US influence"

inigo2: "Obama's no-show at Asia summits a lost chance to buttress US influence

And keep in mind, this is a high visibility example. There are other smaller international meetings that were supposed to happen, whether involving the President or other heads of departments expected to play a large international role, that have been either canceled or went on without US participation. [Sorry, no cites, cause I shouldn't.]"

No offense, but I reckon a lot of non-Americans consider this a wonderful side effect of a shutdown that causes so much pain domestically.
posted by moody cow at 6:30 AM on October 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

the Republican narrative (that this is a result of Ds failure to compromise) has that quality of a lie so outrageous it works in part because it is so outrageous

That's kind of what I was getting at upthread-- for me the most outrageous part of it being that one can safely (and correctly) assume that a huge number of people won't even know--or care to know-- that one is lying. On the fucking record.

I envision a (highly idealized) alternate-universe scenario: most of the population is so educated and demanding of their leadership that there's not even really such a thing as a soundbite, or a talking point, or a pundit. Most people investigate issues via media that, calibrated to those same educated high demands, does not dare to bullshit its audience for fear of loss of credibility-- cheap attempts to lure audiences with oversimplifications, emotionalism, and the charisma of messengers would never see the light of day because the competition would set the bar so much higher than that. Nobody would say, "The former drive-time DJ/ C-student in journalism/ yahoo in a gerrymandered district turned self-appointed political expert on commercial television said X..."-- they'd say "At the in-depth debate between scholars the public media broadcast, and the lively discussion among citizens that followed, X argument was made..." Any politician stupid enough to even try to float an easily-verified lie would be swamped with a response: Save yourself the embarrassment of removal and resign-- you're dealing with grown folks here.

Yes, it's a horrible and stupid idea to measure the practical reality of the world against such a yardstick-- and Lord knows I'm not a model important-information seeker. But the degree to which the most powerful, most privileged, most free nation on the planet is trying its god-damnedest to go to the other extreme-- "Of course he's telling the truth-- he's on a television speaking with confidence!" just... it just...
posted by Rykey at 6:39 AM on October 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

From today's NYT: Boehner Urges G.O.P. Unity in ‘Epic Battle’
Asked what the House was doing, Representative Devin Nunes, Republican of California and a Boehner loyalist, said: “You really have to call Cruz, I’m not even joking about that. That’s really what you have to do, because he’s the one that set up the strategy, he’s the one that got us into this mess, and so we’ve got to know what the next move is.”

I'm glad to see Ted Cruz get properly blamed, but I don't think anyone expects the Tea Party nuts who forced this hand to make any concessions, even rhetorical ones. No, as always, the buck stops at the guy in charge. Also from the article:

[Boehner] did show a flash of temper when he referred to suggestions from the White House that Democrats had the advantage. “This isn’t some damn game,” he said, his voice rising. “The American people don’t want their government shut down, and neither do I.”

Yet he is the one with the power to bring a "clean CR" up for a vote, a vote that by all accounts would pass with bipartisan support. He refuses.
posted by cyclopticgaze at 7:01 AM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

No offense, but I reckon a lot of non-Americans consider this a wonderful side effect of a shutdown that causes so much pain domestically.

Yes, there are a lot of non-Americans equally unintelligent as tea partiers.
posted by inigo2 at 7:02 AM on October 5, 2013

Anyone good at video editing software? I want to do an anti Cucinelli video. Its an ad for a buddy-cop show "Cruz and Cooch." Throw in 70's music and a 70's title card. Voice over: "Cruz and Cooch: They want to police your private life--and they'll break any rule to do it." Starring John Boehner as "The Captain" (shot of Boehner smoking) Various cuts then follow of fake newspaper headlines: COOCH: WOMEN SHOULD HAVE NO DIVORCE. CRUZ: SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT TO STOP HEALTHCARE REFORM.

Intersperse B-roll of 70s Ford LTDs taking corners fast, etc. Voiceover: "CRUZ AND COOCH, Every day and every night on every channel if you don't vote"
posted by Ironmouth at 7:14 AM on October 5, 2013 [5 favorites]

do you think Boehner is crying somewhere, in secret? I am genuinely curious about this sad sack of a man. Does he just tear up when he thinks the manly thing to do is to shed a tear, like an ad exec reaching retirement? And why does he overdue the fake tan? Does he know how much of a fucktard history will view him? I'd like to see a Robert Caro book about him, but unlike the LBJ books about LBJ kicking ass to hell and back, it would be like, 'and then......he failed again. What a loser.'
posted by angrycat at 7:16 AM on October 5, 2013 [5 favorites]

PS, I am serious, but it might get made by pros first, because I did send a FB message with the idea to my neighbor, who is Comms Director for the DNC.

So if you are good at video editing, let me know.
posted by Ironmouth at 7:16 AM on October 5, 2013

The mayor of my podunk little county in East Tennessee has made an offer to the Feds: let us patrol and manage the parts of Great Smoky Mountains National Park that are in our county (Foothills Parkway and Cades Cove, primarily) and we will do the job for free, to reopen the Park.

No word from the Feds yet.
posted by workerant at 7:22 AM on October 5, 2013

The average American is significantly less privileged and free than the average person in the western democracies. I mean, I get what you're getting at with the American exceptionalist language, but nonetheless I'm nerdily compelled to point out that, in a literal rather than poetic sense, it's just not true.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 7:24 AM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Cruz

Cooch

And John Boehner as "The Captain"
posted by Ironmouth at 7:28 AM on October 5, 2013 [4 favorites]

The front page of the Washington Post site says the House has just passed a bill to pay the furloughed federal workers - seems to be just a headline with no story yet. This is good leverage to get folks back to work as it's hard to imagine even the Teahadists rationalizing paying workers to say home (assuming the Senate also approves, which I assume they will unless there is a weird poison pill in there). I wonder if they will also pay the people furloughed by sequestration earlier this calendar year.
posted by exogenous at 8:10 AM on October 5, 2013

WH has says it will sign the back pay bill.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:16 AM on October 5, 2013

Let's be clear. They are weak. They are twisting and turning in the wind, trying to find some sort of way out of this mess, to the point of trying to take away their own leverage (which was really Obama's anyway).
posted by Ironmouth at 8:19 AM on October 5, 2013

The thing that kills me about the Tea Party party line is - they claim "the majority" of us don't want Obamacare - but yet every news piece I've heard says that the health care web sites are overloaded. So if we supposedly don't want it, why are all these people trying to log on?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:24 AM on October 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

Poor people who, in their eyes, don't count.
posted by Quonab at 8:27 AM on October 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

I mean, to play devil's advocate, it doesn't take a majority of the country to overload a website. It doesn't even take a majority of Reddit.
posted by saturday_morning at 8:29 AM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

every news piece I've heard says that the health care web sites are overloaded. So if we supposedly don't want it, why are all these people trying to log on?

Math. Not like I'm agreeing at all with the Tea Partiers, but it's totally possible that both the majority of people don't want Obamacare and that the websites can't handle the capacity of the people who do want it. Again, I am not saying this, do not agree with what the TPers say, and think the whole thing is a pathetic embarrassment, but if your question is "How can this be possible?" Mathematically it's totally possible. 40 million people without health care. For the sake of argument let's say 19 million people (not a majority) want health care. Websites got taken down on the first day of sign-ups by 2-3 million people hitting healthcare.gov. Math.
posted by jessamyn at 8:29 AM on October 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

Obamacare moves from majority to plurality support and back again with the President's approval rating. We must hold here until it starts working.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:32 AM on October 5, 2013

Okay, yeah, technically I know that the raw numbers of people trying to log on could still be a numerical minority, but I still wanna ask that of some Tea Party shills to shut em up or make them look stupid or something.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:54 AM on October 5, 2013

we will do the job for free, to reopen the Park.

Per the law that's been linked here a few times (here's some of the discussion above), not sure that's actually legal.
posted by inigo2 at 8:54 AM on October 5, 2013

Look, the polls show the will of the people, and if the polls say they don't like Obamacare then we need to take drastic measures to stop it, and if the polls say they don't like our drastic measures well look at the time I've got to go do a thing busy busy busy
posted by jason_steakums at 9:10 AM on October 5, 2013 [9 favorites]

The thing that kills me about the Tea Party party line is - they claim "the majority" of us don't want Obamacare ...

As I understand it, they are taking polls where some people say the ACA didn't go far enough and where some people say the ACA goes way too far, and they're misrepresenting these polls as saying that all these people simply want the ACA to be repealed.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 9:37 AM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Forbes:

Polls consistently show that Americans aren’t happy with Obamacare. They think the law will make health care more expensive, and decrease its quality. But a new survey of 1,976 registered voters finds that only 33 percent believe that the health law should be repealed, delayed, or defunded. 29 percent believe that “Congress should make changes to improve the law,” 26 percent believe that “Congress should let the law take effect” and see what happens, and 12 percent believe that the law should be expanded.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:42 AM on October 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

Lee Terry says he 'cannot handle' giving up own paycheck during shutdown

Rep. Lee Terry, R-Neb., was blunt when asked if he would continue collecting his paychecks during the shutdown.

“Dang straight,” he said.

Terry suggested it’s an irrelevant question because the situation would be resolved before long.

What about the other members who were donating or forgoing their pay?

“Whatever gets them good press,” Terry said. “That’s all that it’s going to be. God bless them. But you know what? I’ve got a nice house and a kid in college, and I’ll tell you we cannot handle it. Giving our paycheck away when you still worked and earned it? That’s just not going to fly.”

posted by tonycpsu at 9:43 AM on October 5, 2013 [4 favorites]

I’ve got a nice house

double fuck you, pal
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:44 AM on October 5, 2013 [18 favorites]

Huh, he literally just said fuck you I've got mine. Well then, good to have it out in the open there.
posted by The Whelk at 9:47 AM on October 5, 2013 [40 favorites]

For what it's worth, I think the "why aren't you all giving up your salaries" thing is a bit of a red herring -- it seems to me the very definition of "essential" personnel in a government shutdown are the assholes who can actually open government again, and taking away their paychecks when the government shuts down just gives an advantage to the wealthy representatives who can afford missing a paycheck or three over those who can't. Giving up salaries voluntarily is no less a stunt than these piecemeal "restore the parts of government people miss" bills.

Still, you gotta be pretty stupid to say this shit to reporters when you're responsible for shutting down the nation's largest employer.
posted by tonycpsu at 10:01 AM on October 5, 2013 [9 favorites]

He probably justifies the nice house like Lord Fancypants on Downton Abbey: it creates jobs (cook nanny gardener) so really he's a man for the people. Douche.
posted by angrycat at 10:04 AM on October 5, 2013

I rather like Chainsaw Suit's take on the shutdown.
posted by emjaybee at 10:04 AM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Even amid furloughs, some Texans cheer Cruz

Thanks to Texas' new senator, Dale Huls is out of a job — at least for now. Yet Huls has never been prouder that he voted for him.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:33 AM on October 5, 2013

Yeah, it's all "fuck you, I got mine" all day all the time.

We've got a nice house, too (well, we and the bank) and we've got bills that are looking uglier and uglier, but I'd hate to have Mr. Terry at all stretched.

From above:
I would prefer if more of congress weren't so rich that they could afford to give away their paychecks for a tiny fraction of political good will. Would be nice if they were more economically representative of the general public.

Actually, after reading this, I realized I DON'T WANT them to give up their paychecks. The more they look and act like entitled fucks, the more it convinces people to view them with the contempt they deserve. I just wish more people understood what it means for those of use who are living with a furlough.

A friend of mine asked me today if my husband was enjoying his 'vacation.' I didn't hit the ceiling, but I think I raised up a few inches. No, he's not on vacation, and it's going to be a real bitch in a couple weeks when the power bill is due and he only has part of a paycheck (or none.)

"But you guys are going to make out--eventually he gets all of it back without having had to go to work and you don't have to pay taxes on it."

W.T.F??

Apparently she read that in an email. And forwarded it.

*facepalm*

yeah. lucky us.
posted by BlueHorse at 10:35 AM on October 5, 2013 [7 favorites]

Republican U.S. Rep. Renee Ellmers said Friday she would decline her $174,000 congressional salary...

Har har! Don't we wish. She later recants to say she'll take the furlough time.

In 2010, Ellmers, a nurse, was rated as one of the poorest members of Congress with a personal net worth of negative $91,497. Her most recent financial disclosure form provided by her office shows she’s still in the red, with a negative net worth of $403,000. The debt reflects a mortgage, a home equity line and a loan for property at Topsail Beach. The form does not include her congressional salary or the salary of her husband, a doctor.

Yup, this is someone with a fine fiscal sense working on the gumment debt.
posted by BlueHorse at 10:48 AM on October 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

It sounds like she's wasting my tax money. Maybe she should take a drug test or two.
posted by dirigibleman at 11:04 AM on October 5, 2013 [15 favorites]

Thanks to Texas' new senator, Dale Huls is out of a job — at least for now. Yet Huls has never been prouder that he voted for him.

Well, if NASA returns with more sequestering/cutdowns, now we know who to lay off permanently...
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:18 AM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Victims Once More, Head Start Families Struggling Under Shutdown

The shutdown, in short, has forced low-income families to make quick and painful financial choices. Christine Ford, 30, a Tallahassee single mom working two jobs, said she was forced to dip into savings to pay the $300 for day care when her daughter's Head Start abruptly closed.

“That was my money for food,” she told HuffPost.
posted by Drinky Die at 11:20 AM on October 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

I don't think "money for food" is "savings." It's just "money for food." That she now doesn't have.

Every time newspapers talk about "dipping into savings" I want to ask them, how many people actually have much or any savings these days?
posted by emjaybee at 11:22 AM on October 5, 2013 [18 favorites]

Interesting point and one that might escape the more financially secure. I sometimes have thought of my "money for food" as "savings" in the sense that "I got paid $600 this week, I am paying $300 in bills out of it right now, and saving $300 to cover food for the month." It's not really "savings" in the sense of money you will not require in the immediate future - it's earmarked - but since you're not spending it immediately, especially if it's in what is nominally a savings account, it might be easy for a reporter to understand what you're saying.
posted by Miko at 11:29 AM on October 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

Incidentally - I am an idiot for being in conversation with my conservative friends over this, but the anger on that side of the aisle is still at the gall Barack Obama has to actually shut down the government when the law requires him to shut down the government. From Breitbart:

"Just before the weekend, the National Park Service informed charter boat captains in Florida that the Florida Bay was 'closed' due to the shutdown. Until government funding is restored, the fishing boats are prohibited from taking anglers into 1,100 square-miles of open ocean. Fishing is also prohibited at Biscayne National Park during the shutdown. The Park Service will also have rangers on duty to police the ban. Of access to an ocean. The government will probably use more personnel and spend more resources to attempt to close the ocean, than it would in its normal course of business. This is governing by temper-tantrum. It is on par with the government's ham-fisted attempts to close the DC WWII Memorial, an open-air public monument that is normally accessible 24 hours a day. By accessible I mean, you walk up to it. When you have finished reflecting, you then walk away from it. At least that Memorial is an actual structure, with some kind of perimeter that can be fenced off. Florida Bay is the ocean. How, pray tell, do you 'close' 1,100 square miles of ocean? Why would one even need to do so?"

You "close" it by disallowing access to it. And you would do that in order to prevent damage to it and injury and emergency on it. That's how public property works.

Basically, the right still believes that government is completely unnecessary - is preserving that belief in the face of massive proof to the contrary - and is shocked when the things they like that government provides disappear. "How dare you stop the music?" they demand to know. "We just said we'd rather you didn't play all those notes!"
posted by koeselitz at 11:43 AM on October 5, 2013 [15 favorites]

Pentagon finalizing plan to bring back furloughed civilian workers

"The Pentagon may announce as soon as this weekend a plan to bring up to 400,000 furloughed civilian employees back to work, according to two Defense Department officials.

CNN has learned the plan is in the final stages of being written and approved.

If all are returned to work, it would represent about half the number of government civilian and contract employees at risk of furloughs during the government shutdown that began on Tuesday."
posted by republican at 11:49 AM on October 5, 2013

Well, if NASA returns with more sequestering/cutdowns, now we know who to lay off permanently...

It sounds like they should also fire NASA administrator Charles Bolden.
posted by homunculus at 11:59 AM on October 5, 2013

Well, at least the 'important' people* are going back to work...

*those whose job is is to protect us from outside invaders... and ourselves... and also provide transportation to military academy football games...
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:02 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Weigel wrote an article on why the Democrats are holding so firm, it includes more context on the McDermott quote he tweeted earlier.

“Dealing with terrorists has taught us some things,” said Washington Rep. Jim McDermott after voting no on one of Thursday’s GOP bills. “You can’t deal with ’em. This mess was created by the Republicans for one purpose, and they lost. People in my district are calling in for Obamacare—affordable health care—in large numbers. These guys have lost, and they can’t figure out how to admit it.” Why would House Democrats give away what the Supreme Court and the 2012 electorate didn’t? “You can’t say, OK, you get half of Obamacare—this isn’t a Solomonic decision,” McDermott said. “So we sit here until they figure out they fuckin’ lost.”
posted by Drinky Die at 12:05 PM on October 5, 2013 [29 favorites]

Wait. A politician, in an interview with Salon used the word "fuckin'"? Really? Damn. Or am I just out of the loop and this is like totally cool now? (Not that I have a fuckin' problem with that, of course).
posted by symbioid at 12:13 PM on October 5, 2013

symbioid: "Wait. A politician, in an interview with Salon used the word "fuckin'"? Really? Damn. Or am I just out of the loop and this is like totally cool now? (Not that I have a fuckin' problem with that, of course)."

This is Jim McDermott (my rep, yay!). If he hasn't been quoted using some variant of fuck up to this point, it's only because someone edited it out.
posted by Lulu's Pink Converse at 12:16 PM on October 5, 2013 [17 favorites]

workerant: "The mayor of my podunk little county in East Tennessee has made an offer to the Feds: let us patrol and manage the parts of Great Smoky Mountains National Park that are in our county (Foothills Parkway and Cades Cove, primarily) and we will do the job for free, to reopen the Park.

No word from the Feds yet."

Sadly, asking again will not make it legal.
posted by wierdo at 1:42 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

DoD News Release
posted by ctmf at 2:02 PM on October 5, 2013

Uh-oh: apparently the discharge petition gambit won't work after all.
posted by Rhaomi at 2:12 PM on October 5, 2013

It's more about putting pressure on the moderate Republicans to sign on, because if they did it would kneecap Boehner and there would be no point in making them wait the extra time with the outcome so clear.
posted by Drinky Die at 2:28 PM on October 5, 2013

"Even amid furloughs, some Texans cheer Cruz"

Reminds me of this article yesterday: Oklahoma resists Obamacare, full of bullshit from people who would be helped by Obamacare complaining about it. Just grit in my gears.
posted by klangklangston at 2:29 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Uh-oh: apparently the discharge petition gambit won't work after all.

That's from Politico though. I'll wait for a second opinion before I write it off completely.
posted by longdaysjourney at 2:30 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Arizona has stopped giving welfare. It would cost them something like a million dollars a month, and the feds have already promised that they would reimburse. Arizona's state budget is more along the lines of a billion dollars a month.
posted by Flunkie at 2:41 PM on October 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

Fox Falls For Fake Story About Obama Personally Funding Muslim Museum During Shutdown
posted by Drinky Die at 2:41 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

I wonder if they "fell" for it or if they thought, "Hey, lots of people who watch our programming will believe this one!"
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 2:44 PM on October 5, 2013 [14 favorites]

Between the Fox News link from Drinky Die and klangklangston's link about Oklahoman's ignorance/hearsay/gossip fears, I get so fucking ANGRY. How much goddamned ignorance, and fucking PURPOSEFUL ignorance at that.

I understand, to a degree, that understanding a new law isn't easy, but listening to the people talking it's like "so and so says this and so and so says that, so who knows?"

Instead of word of mouth gossipy bullshit, how about you get to a fucking library and read a synopsis or the internet and go to wikipedia, or any non-political site to find out the facts. I'd say go to healthcare.gov, but, we know that's kind of problematic right now.

And I'm pissed, because people deserve and should have health care, and that asshole who says "if people want it, they can go to the ER" Oh FUCK YOU BUDDY. That's NOT health care, you fuckhead, that's emergency "oh shit I'm in trouble" care. The ER should not be abused for every day things. And it's problematic because it takes away a proper working doctor/patient relationship which can lead to better results.

But hey, you know, let's keep being willfully ignorant (and again, I don't want to sound like I'm blaming the victims here, because I know sometimes it's not easy, especially if you're stuck in poverty and underserved in a rural area and you have limited access to information, and maybe limited time to get access to that information...) It's not that, it's the fact that you are relying on he said/she said.

It kind of ties into the same bullshit, to me, as the Malcolm Gladwell post. We want everything simplified and dumbed down, so we take these stupid little stories every one tells each other as some sort of "truth" and then we all shove it out there in an endless feedback loop of drivel, and then nobody knows the facts, because they're all too busy trying to sound smart by stating "common sense". Whether it's some dumb banal "fact" from a Gladwell book, or a completely made up "fact" about the ACA (death panels! It's a government plan you have to buy! etc...) The fact that people actually think it's an insurance plan and not a market place never even struck me as a possibility, and that lack of engagement on the issue is certainly a problem, and that, of course, is precisely what jackass people like that Atty General from OK want. Confusion, discord, discontent. Dysfunction, just like we're seeing at the Capitol right now.

And the people who are getting hurt lap this shit up and believe it, because they have a hard time accessing proper information (or let other preconceptions prevent them from finding out the facts), and then the "blame big gov't game" keeps a rollin' on.
posted by symbioid at 2:53 PM on October 5, 2013 [14 favorites]

The government will probably use more personnel and spend more resources to attempt to close the ocean, than it would in its normal course of business.

I have seen this shit in so many places online now, with absolutely no regard for facts, that I'm glad it's online and I don't have to punch the person saying it in the face. "Oh, if we throw the word 'probably' in something, then the rest of it doesn't matter!"
posted by inigo2 at 2:57 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

or let other preconceptions prevent them from finding out the facts

This is the big thing, maybe the most big of things. They refuse to accept the fact that THEY are the disadvantaged people who will be affected by various shitty government policies because they don't want to think of themselves as THOSE PEOPLE, you know the ones, the ones who get handouts for being lazy poors or immigrants or minorities or whatever social strata they need to feel superior to. And pointing this out will only make them dig in deeper.
posted by elizardbits at 3:04 PM on October 5, 2013 [11 favorites]

that asshole who says "if people want it, they can go to the ER" Oh FUCK YOU BUDDY. That's NOT health care, you fuckhead, that's emergency "oh shit I'm in trouble" care

That asshole doesn't want ANY kind of insurance/protection because he doesn't want to go to the doctor anyway and in case of emergency, they can't refuse him (even for having an accident while riding his motorcycle without a helmet), and the Republican view is that this is taking away HIS RIGHTS. (Yeah, he's part of the GOP base)
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:12 PM on October 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

Mint the Premium Bonds!

As Congress looks increasingly likely to force a default on U.S. government debt for no real reason, there are two possible approaches for a rational outside observer to take, which are (1) despair and (2) hare-brained scheming.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:12 PM on October 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

oneswellfoop: "the Republican view is that this is taking away HIS RIGHTS"

It's no different than their jackassery about compulsory auto insurance or the seatbelt law.
posted by wierdo at 3:18 PM on October 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

from drinkie die's link

"Countries really do enter into contracts that require high future payments but that create less formal "debt," in order to get around restrictions on their debt. Greece did exactly that, "

well, how's that working out for them now?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:21 PM on October 5, 2013

Well, the debt ceiling is an artificial crisis of irrational self harm while Greece had serious, real issues. But the author does make it clear it's still a banana republic move, just better than default.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:25 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

But hey, you know, let's keep being willfully ignorant

Agnotology: the study of culturally induced ignorance.
posted by Mister Bijou at 4:03 PM on October 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

It's no different than their jackassery about compulsory auto insurance or the seatbelt law.

Hell, they had a shit-fit about losing their big gulps.
posted by octothorpe at 4:35 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

"Agnotology", that term is based on "Agnew", right?
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:00 PM on October 5, 2013

Close, but no cigar.
posted by Mister Bijou at 5:07 PM on October 5, 2013

We'll see if it goes anywhere but an ethics complaint has been filed against park ranger scolder Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas). Essentially saying he used his position of authority to intimidate the park ranger.
posted by edgeways at 5:11 PM on October 5, 2013 [11 favorites]

Ha. How many Reps are breaking Rule No. 1 of the Code of Official Conduct right now?
posted by jason_steakums at 5:48 PM on October 5, 2013

Some opinion on the global perspective from the New York Review of Books: Shutting Down the World
posted by Going To Maine at 6:03 PM on October 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

Is this a constitutional crisis?
posted by empath at 6:43 PM on October 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

I think it's fairly obvious that this is not a constitutional crisis. None of the things Chait mentions in that article are unprecedented; all of them are instances covered by the Constitution, as it has come down to us and as it is currently interpreted. And I'll say this: he seems to be misreading Linz' essay from which he quotes a good deal. Linz there asked briefly how the American Constitution managed to produce a stable system in the face of these kinds of conflicts; his answer (which Chait somehow missed) was that it does so by "normalizing" such conflicts through having them constantly and consistently. They are thereby defused. So the fact that there's a conflict between the President and Congress regarding which has the Democratic mandate is not a "constitutional crisis;" it happens at least every two years.

I mean: we can sit here moaning that things have never been this bad, that (as he says) the right has been pushed further right and become an "ethnically homogeneous reactionary party." We can say that they're looking for alternatives to gridlock, and hit on blackmail. But the American government has never run on custom or propriety, and there have almost always been people in all three branches who were willing to engage in blackmail to get what they want. Yes, we face a "reactionary" party that is happy to shut down the government, wants to nullify a duly-passed law, and is using dire financial outcomes as a bargaining chip. But there was a time when the majority party - and in fact a majority of people in both parties - believed that black people are inferior to white people and should be enslaved, that brown people are inferior to white people and should be slaughtered, and that the entire continent should be drenched in bloody conquest in the name of our supposed birthright as white Europeans. And even people in both parties who thought that was a bit extreme figured they ought to give it to the people since they demanded it, and since to do otherwise would be to threaten the stability of the nation. So for a long time, they got their way. That massive folly rose to the level of a genuine constitutional crisis - and thankfully it was resolved.

This shutdown? I don't think it's even remotely likely that this will have a large impact on the way the American constitution functions. If the fact that the parties realize they can shut down the government as a bargaining ploy is a such a world-shifting possibility, why didn't everything fall apart in 1996?
posted by koeselitz at 7:22 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

If they refuse to raise the debt ceiling it could be a legitimate constitutional crisis if none of the hare-brained schemes are recognized as valid alternatives. The President would be without legal options to prevent an economic collapse that would be a threat to the continued existence of the union.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:40 PM on October 5, 2013

it's a constitutional crisis in the making - there's still plenty of time to avoid it and ways that it can be avoided and perhaps it will

but once we come up against the debt ceiling, we'll be in it
posted by pyramid termite at 7:46 PM on October 5, 2013

People Are Calling This Obamacare Insurance Exchange in Tears

For Xerox’s Kevin Walsh, “10/1,” as he calls this past Tuesday, was years in the making. Walsh is the managing director of a division of Xerox that’s working with states on the insurance exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act, and Oct. 1 was the day all of them went live. I checked in with him to see how the first few days of the exchange went in Nevada, where the company both runs the technology that underpins the website and operates the call centers that field queries from the public.

When the exchange opened—17 minutes later than the 8 a.m. scheduled start time—the website and call centers were flooded with inquiries. Walsh said that in the first few hours“it was just raw emotion calling in.” People eager for insurance, at times in tears, wanted to get coverage that they didn’t have before. “They were calling up saying, ‘Can I get my coverage today so I can see my doctor this afternoon?’” he says. “That is in one sense moving but also frustrating because, sure, you can sign up—but the coverage can’t be effective until Jan. 1.”
posted by Artw at 8:03 PM on October 5, 2013 [9 favorites]

That President is constantly without a legal option to prevent threats to the Union. An asteroid could kill us all; there is nothing the President could do to prevent that, were it to happen. An existential threat isn't the same thing as a constitutional crisis.

Inaction is illegal too though. He is legally obligated to spend money he is forbidden to obtain.

NY Times: Having been told to spend, but not to raise taxes or issue debt, “the president has to decide which of Congress’s orders to follow,” said Neil H. Buchanan, a law professor at George Washington University, who wrote the article with Michael C. Dorf, a law professor at Cornell. The president must, in the article’s words, “choose the least unconstitutional option.”
posted by Drinky Die at 8:10 PM on October 5, 2013

An existential threat isn't the same thing as a constitutional crisis.

if it involves the questioning of our national debt and how it must be serviced, it most certainly is
posted by pyramid termite at 8:10 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Is there a really compelling reason for Obama not to point to the 14th Amendment and do what he has to do, or any speculation as to why the administration ruled it out before? I'm still scratching my head at why Carney said "I can say that this administration does not believe that the 14th Amendment gives the President the power to ignore the debt ceiling -- period."
posted by jason_steakums at 8:18 PM on October 5, 2013

i'm guessing that BHO pulls the 14th ammendment trigger before he lets us default. as someone said, his choice is between a financial crisis and a constitutional crisis - and i'm guessing he opts for the latter. but only as an absolute last resort. no way we default.
posted by fingers_of_fire at 8:24 PM on October 5, 2013

In the event of a default on the debt ceiling, should I be doing the preparation I refused to do during the Y2K silliness? I mean, should I be stocking up on cat food, canned food, sterno and matches?

I'm not joking.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:27 PM on October 5, 2013

The link that Going to Maine posted reminded me of a political cartoon I saw a few days ago, that showed the Tea Party leading the GOP (as an elephant) by the nose, who was in turn leading the US (as Uncle Sam) by the nose, who was in turn leading the world (personified as a giant globe) by the nose, ending with the last-mentioned thinking to itself that something wasn't right about this.

Does anyone have a link to this?
posted by dhens at 8:34 PM on October 5, 2013

If you live in an area prone to natural disasters, it's a good reminder to make sure you have the appropriate supplies, otherwise, I think a default is about as likely as Y2K was. Probably the one thing you'll get agreement on is that a default would be a disaster. I sincerely hope I don't regret saying this some day.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:35 PM on October 5, 2013

So, what's been going on with credit default swaps against US treasuries? (Probably not phrased correctly, but you know what I mean.)
posted by ryanrs at 8:39 PM on October 5, 2013

Probably the one thing you'll get agreement on is that a default would be a disaster. I sincerely hope I don't regret saying this some day.

I don't know, you read interviews with the Tea Party representatives and they all seem to think the results of a default are overstated by people trying to keep them from getting what they want.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:41 PM on October 5, 2013

Perry v United States seems to set really good grounds for a 14th Amendment option, but I can't really tell if I'm missing something since IANAL. I mean, dang:

There is a clear distinction between the power of the Congress to control or interdict the contracts of private parties when they interfere with the exercise of its constitutional authority and the power of the Congress to alter or repudiate the substance of its own engagements when it has borrowed money under the authority which the Constitution confers. In authorizing the Congress to borrow money, the Constitution empowers the Congress to fix the amount to be borrowed and the terms of payment. By virtue of the power to borrow money "on the credit of the United States," the Congress is authorized to pledge that credit as an assurance of payment as stipulated, as the highest assurance the government can give -- its plighted faith. To say that the Congress may withdraw or ignore that pledge is to assume that the Constitution contemplates a vain promise, a pledge having no other sanction than the pleasure and convenience of the pledgor. This Court has given no sanction to such a conception of the obligations of our government.

Is the big fear that the current Supreme Court might see things differently than the 1935 bench?
posted by jason_steakums at 8:45 PM on October 5, 2013

ryanrs: "So, what's been going on with credit default swaps against US treasuries? (Probably not phrased correctly, but you know what I mean.)"

Not sure if it means anything, but here is a Forbes piece from yesterday that seems to play down the probability of a default happening. It's got some currency info in it that the author uses to demonstrate his statement. Warning: I needed a shower after I read it because it's so slanted against Obama.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:47 PM on October 5, 2013

Something I have been noticing is that the popular media reporting of this seems to be creating a perception that the government has to be reopened in order for the debt limit to be raised. It's totally possible that I am mistaken because this is well into procedural arcana, but I believe the debt limit can be raised without reopening the government, which would put us back where we started, with a closed government, waiting for something to force the issue. That's when I will start to be concerned, when it's clear the issue needs to be forced to break the impasse but it's unclear how that will happen.

I don't know, you read interviews with the Tea Party representatives...

True, they will say anything, so there's not much point in predicting it.
posted by feloniousmonk at 8:54 PM on October 5, 2013

And if we wait long enough, the "Clean CR" currently on the table only goes to NOVEMBER 15TH (I'd previously heard it was end-of-November). This is NOT going away any time soon.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:04 PM on October 5, 2013

feloniousmonk: "I guess the scenario I am describing might unfold something like this: time runs out and Boehner has to do something at the last minute to prevent a default. In order to get the Tea Party to go along with it, he promises that if they vote to raise the debt limit, he will support them in their fight to repeal the ACA and keep the government closed."

That's scary as all hell! Thanks for pointing that possible scenario out.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 9:05 PM on October 5, 2013

That's scary as all hell! Thanks for pointing that possible scenario out.

Like I said, I'm hoping I am overlooking a reason why it couldn't happen that way. It's possible any attempt to raise the debt limit could have a CR for the rest of the government attached to it in a manner that'd be out of reach. It seems like just the kind of mealy mouthed pseudo-compromise we've all come to expect from this Congress though.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:06 PM on October 5, 2013

Debt Ceiling disaster is avoided! Government remains shut-down! Republicans declare victory!
posted by Joey Michaels at 9:14 PM on October 5, 2013

The 14th Amendment says the following: "The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned."

Where does that create any power to act on the part of the President? There is none there. Nor is Congress questioning the validity of the debt. It just is refusing to allow the government to borrow more. It is stripping away the ability to raise the funds needed to keep the float going, not repudiating the debt.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:25 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Perry v United States seems to set really good grounds for a 14th Amendment option, but I can't really tell if I'm missing something since IANAL.

Perry holds that a law reducing or denying the legal obligation to pay its debts is unconstitutional. It does not require the government to raise the funds to pay the obligations. Nor could the Court order congress to so vote, as that would be a fundamental separation of powers issue.

There is no 14th Amendment escape here.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:36 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

I guess the scenario I am describing might unfold something like this: time runs out and Boehner has to do something at the last minute to prevent a default. In order to get the Tea Party to go along with it, he promises that if they vote to raise the debt limit, he will support them in their fight to repeal the ACA and keep the government closed. Hopefully I'm missing something and this isn't an option.

I'm not clear why this is necessarily a worst case option. It's undeniably awful, but seems much better than defaulting and causing a global economic meltdown. On the positive side, it would indicate that the Republicans hadn't gone collectively stark raving mad and could agree that some options are unthinkable.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:37 PM on October 5, 2013

I'm not clear why this is necessarily a worst case option.

I think you are misreading me, I'm not saying it's a worst case option. Anything that prevents a default without undermining the structure of the government is a good option. Unless there's some procedural reason why it can't be done, I think the debt limit probably will be raised without reopening the government. However, if this happens and the House power structure remains status quo, we're right back to square one on the shutdown. I'm more concerned about what will end up forcing the issue of reopening the government and how that will unfold than I am about the debt limit because I think the debt limit will be raised in time.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:59 PM on October 5, 2013

dhens: "The link that Going to Maine posted reminded me of a political cartoon I saw a few days ago, that showed the Tea Party leading the GOP (as an elephant) by the nose, who was in turn leading the US (as Uncle Sam) by the nose, who was in turn leading the world (personified as a giant globe) by the nose, ending with the last-mentioned thinking to itself that something wasn't right about this.

Does anyone have a link to this?"

I remember this one! Google image searching "tea party cliff cartoon" turned it up.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:03 PM on October 5, 2013 [8 favorites]

Ironmouth,

What does the 14th Amendment mean by the validity of the debt?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:21 PM on October 5, 2013

I think it seems to be the difference between, "Sorry, I don't have the cash." and "What? I don't owe you anything."
posted by Drinky Die at 10:26 PM on October 5, 2013

Reading literally, it sounds like it would mean that it's unconstitutional to do the third-world-tinpot thing of announcing you just don't owe any money anymore.

It's also only one sentence out of two in that section. The other is stating specifically that all debts the Confederacy owed, and any debts having to do with ownership of slaves, are null and void.
posted by kafziel at 10:27 PM on October 5, 2013

Miley Cyrus on SNL parodies John Boehner and Michele Bachmann: We Did Stop.
posted by onlyconnect at 10:34 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Okay ... so if the government recognizes that it owes a valid debt but doesn't have cash to pay it ... then what?

Could individuals owed money by the government demand that the government sell assets to pay them back?

It also strikes me as a little odd that someone with a mint could say with a straight face, "Sorry, I know I owe you, but I just don't have any cash right now."
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 10:40 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Sorry. We Did Stop. Carry on.
posted by onlyconnect at 10:44 PM on October 5, 2013 [6 favorites]

Hmm, some interesting speculation in this article on how the President unilaterally ignoring the debt ceiling could play out. He thinks the House would vote to impeach, the Senate would say "haha nice try", the Republicans would sue Obama, the Supreme Court would either say "yeah, not touching that one" effectively neutering the debt ceiling, or rule it unconstitutional, or kickstart global recession part 2 by upholding it, odds favoring them not wanting to touch any part of it with a hundred foot pole.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:48 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Thanks, Ironmouth. I'm super fascinated by the grey areas around this whole thing. 14th Amendment aside, would the President have standing to sue Congress if they put him in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position by not raising the ceiling?

What remedy? That congress must cast a particular vote? A court cannot order that, it is a fundamental violation of the separation of powers.

Drinky Die has it. In my thinking, validity of the debt means that congress cannot pass a law saying this debt is off the books. It appears to really be about assuring that the bounties to avoid the draft but get a man in uniform would have to be paid after the war.
posted by Ironmouth at 10:57 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

I would have thought the remedy would be for the Court to declare any act setting a ceiling on the debt unconstitutional. Either that or declaring any bill that authorizes spending that exceeds the debt limit unconstitutional. No?

(And I'm still baffled by what it could mean to have a debt that cannot be paid in the age of fiat currency. The distinction may have made sense in the days of specie, but now?)
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:03 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Hmm, some interesting speculation in this article on how the President unilaterally ignoring the debt ceiling could play out.

That person has zero idea what they are talking about. He says after the 14th was passed, the Congress retained the right to default on debt. He has no idea what he's talking about, as the straight-on holding of Perry, above. Also the Supreme Court by definition cannot get involved. The problem is that this is a question of nonfeasance. Meaning the failure to do an act. And as I indicated above, the Courts lack the power to compel representatives to cast particular votes. How could it therefore intervene?
posted by Ironmouth at 11:05 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

They could simply clarify what the President is to do in that situation, which of the two contradicting laws outweighs the other.
posted by jason_steakums at 11:06 PM on October 5, 2013

I would have thought the remedy would be for the Court to declare any act setting a ceiling on the debt unconstitutional. Either that or declaring any bill that authorizes spending that exceeds the debt limit unconstitutional. No?

Hmmmmm, didn't think of that. So you attack the prior law in the first place. The problem is how does this reach the courts? What is the case or controversy here that does not violate the political question doctrine or the advisory opinion doctrine? The President may not ask the Court to provide an ahead of time opinion of whether or not the act of issuing the new debt was legal. He would have to do it. And there's the rub.

In the end, the problem with issuing debt not approved by the Congress is that where its validity gets decided is in a suit by the bond holder to enforce payment. Such debt would sell at a discount, reducing confidence in the overall credit of the government. You cannot practically have such bonds. They would cause the same crash that not issuing bonds would create. They might cause less of one, but they are far from useful.

Furthermore, the debt ceiling is valid. Remember that only Congress is granted the authority to issue debt in Article I, Section 8. The debt ceiling is Congress' authorization to raise the debt, it is an affirmative act, a license if you will to issue debt until a date certain. The President lacks the constitiutional power to issue debt on his own say so.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:22 PM on October 5, 2013 [7 favorites]

They could simply clarify what the President is to do in that situation, which of the two contradicting laws outweighs the other.

No. Advisory opinions are forbidden. A federal court may not issue one. There must be a cause or controversy to decide.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:24 PM on October 5, 2013 [4 favorites]

Thanks, Ironmouth, that's really helpful.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 11:34 PM on October 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

(And I'm still baffled by what it could mean to have a debt that cannot be paid in the age of fiat currency. The distinction may have made sense in the days of specie, but now?)

Economics baffle me, so maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like paying off debts by just printing more dollars isn't a great idea. It doesn't actually make the debt go away, it just makes it seem like it did, by spreading the debt out across all the dollars everywhere, via inflation. It's like that trick in the other thread, where the guy seems to make chocolate appear by stealing tiny geometric slivers of value from the rest of the chocolate bar.
posted by rifflesby at 11:35 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Ahh, ok. So he's gotta take the plunge first. That's the bit I found interesting in the HuffPo article I linked, that if he does act unilaterally the Republicans would be pressured to sue because an impeachment would go nowhere, and if they did that the court can either claim political question doctrine or rule on the constitutionality of the debt limit and the way it's handled. And if they take the likely political question option, the debt limit's effectively neutered because the President can feel safer in acting unilaterally on it in the future.

Where in the Constitution is the President authorized to issue debt? Its expressly given to Congress in Article I, section 8. The guy who wrote that article is wrong.

Frankly, it would be an impeachable offense for him to issue debt in the name of the United States. He should not do it. The Executive must be unable to raise funds without authorization. It is literally the most important point in the Constitution.

This is a political crisis, not a constitutional one. It is not an error of the Founders that this is occuring. Right now, a strain of political thinking is facing the realization that it will not have the access to national power it once did. It politically must change or be a regional party. It does not want to.

The Constitution is clear on these matters. The President may not issue debt or raise taxes without approval of the legislature. The English Civil war was fought over this and a king was executed. We should not revisit that simply to avoid a recession.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:39 PM on October 5, 2013 [13 favorites]

(And I'm still baffled by what it could mean to have a debt that cannot be paid in the age of fiat currency. The distinction may have made sense in the days of specie, but now?)

Economics baffle me, so maybe I'm missing something, but it seems like paying off debts by just printing more dollars isn't a great idea.

I agree. Most of the "solutions" are nearly as bad as the problem. These workarounds still result in a recession.

In the end, the current bondholders would sue, the government would pay, eventually by selling the physical plant and land.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:42 PM on October 5, 2013

Ironmouth: "the government would pay, eventually by selling the physical plant and land."

Isn't that doing exactly what the Koch Bros. and their buddies want?
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 11:45 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Frankly, it would be an impeachable offense for him to issue debt in the name of the United States. He should not do it. The Executive must be unable to raise funds without authorization. It is literally the most important point in the Constitution.

Which I totally understand. The trick in this situation is that doing anything is acting unilaterally against Congress and leads down the same road, because he's wedged between conflicting laws.

The laws are not in conflict at all. He is not wedged. The Constitution denys him any of these powers people claim he has to ignore the debt ceiling.

I want to really point how huge it is this time. It is really, really huge. President Obama is facing a serious crisis. A group of people is basically threatening to destroy themselves and in the process create chaos.

It is really up to John Boehner to ensure the government is paid for. It is the primary job of the legislature.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:55 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Ironmouth: "It is really up to John Boehner to ensure the government is paid for. It is the primary job of the legislature."

If that's the case (and I don't doubt you), then it seems the USA is screwed. Sure, Obama could roll over, but that just validates this strategy.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 11:59 PM on October 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Which I totally understand. The trick in this situation

There are no tricks that get us out of this situation. The basic rule is that the King cannot raise taxes to build an army without the money being authorized by the legislative power.

Imagine George W. Bush with the power to raise funds himself. Obama would be wrong to assert such a power. Him doing that is them winning.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:00 AM on October 6, 2013 [3 favorites]

Ironmouth: "It is really up to John Boehner to ensure the government is paid for. It is the primary job of the legislature."

If that's the case (and I don't doubt you), then it seems the USA is screwed. Sure, Obama could roll over, but that just validates this strategy.

You're mistaking Boehner's strength for Obama's. Boehner's greatest weakness is that not raising the debt ceiling will shatter the Republican party. And I mean shatter. Not in the first five minutes, but the first five months, yes.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:03 AM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

It is really up to John Boehner to ensure the government is paid for. It is the primary job of the legislature.

Agreed. Completely ridiculous Obama allowed himself to be blackmailed on this in the past. It was the biggest mistake of his Presidency and we are feeling the impact in multiple ways right now years after it happened. The burden for this is on the legislature, not the President.
posted by Drinky Die at 12:08 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

What I meant by trick is that the whole situation is a trick, a trap. How are the laws not in conflict? He has the choice of A) spending what Congress has authorized him to spend, which he has to do and which requires borrowing above the debt limit, or B) following the debt limit, which means he's not spending what he has to spend. Either choice is grounds for impeachment to a House salivating at the opportunity, and he has to pick one.

They can't impeach him for not spending money they refused to give him. The money isn't there to spend. It does not exist. The House would revolt loing before that.

If we go over the debt ceiling, GOP moderates will defect to the Dems. They will call a speaker election and Boehner will lose. Nancy Pelosi would be Speaker. It will be a disaster for everyone involved.

Frankly, Boehner's gone into this essentially knowing this will fail. He picked the shutdown. It was his choice. That's so he can still raise the debt ceiling.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:09 AM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

It is really up to John Boehner to ensure the government is paid for. It is the primary job of the legislature.

Agreed. Completely ridiculous Obama allowed himself to be blackmailed on this in the past. It was the biggest mistake of his Presidency and we are feeling the impact in multiple ways right now years after it happened. The burden for this is on the legislature, not the President.

First, if you wanna complain, dial 1-800-Clinton. That precedent was set long ago.

Second, the "fiscal cliff" included a lot of stuff he wanted, his tax increase, for example. He got it. Its much harder to campaign on something and then veto any fiscal cliff because you don't want the taxes.

Third, last year's budget is the budget. We're fighting for a CR. Remember when the GOP suddenly wanted to go to confrence? Dems had asked for months for that.

Here, they are trying to relitigate the past. There's no stomach in the country for that. And the election loss has incredibly weakened the GOP.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:17 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

What I meant by trick is that the whole situation is a trick, a trap.

Like a trick bag. OK. Yeah it is one and a hard work escape.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:22 AM on October 6, 2013

They can't impeach him for not spending money they refused to give him. The money isn't there to spend. It does not exist.

I don't think there's anything saying they can't. As Ford said, "An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history," and when it comes down to it are those 17 Republicans willing to vote for a CR aren't doing it to have Obama's back. I don't know how the infighting would shake out on that point. And even if there's no money there to spend, he still has to obtain Congressional approval for impoundment in that case to stay on the right side of the law, doesn't he? He can't make the call to not spend what he's told to spend since the impoundment power was removed with Nixon. If they try to make him twist in the wind on that point with crisis on all sides, I think that would be the final nail in the Republican coffin, because the last pretense of the whole thing being anything other than a charade would evaporate.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:26 AM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

Question from a layman - isn't a default on bonds questioning the validity of the public debt?

I.E. Bonds mature and come due, the Treasury would normally pay for those by issuing new bonds. It's forbidden from doing so because it can't issue new ones (debt ceiling) and can't pay back the current ones now due as it doesn't have any money left (because congress didn't raise taxes/cut spending enough). So people holding bonds are owed money by the Treasury, and it can't pay - isn't refusing to pay back on existing debts what the 14th admendment is meant to prevent?

I agree that doesn't give the President the constitutional authority to raise new debt absent congressional authority, but the 14th with Perry also seems to demand to this layman that he must pay up on existing debts - with money congress hasn't given him. He could not default by not paying for other things congress have told him to pay for, which also is a breach of the law.

Does he even have the authority to sell off plant and land to try and square the circle? I thought that power also rested solely with congress?

Short of the trillion dollar platinum coin trick, i.e. ~~printing~~ minting money to pay the bills which is also on dodgy constitutional grounds, is there any option left that's actually constitutional?
posted by ArkhanJG at 12:33 AM on October 6, 2013

(This is why Boehner wanted to take the debt limit hostage again and was exasperated that the TP forced the issue on the shutdown. He wanted to follow the same roadmap that worked out for him so well last time)
posted by Drinky Die at 12:42 AM on October 6, 2013

It should be noted that they realistically can't impeach Obama for that. Obama wouldn't do it if he didn't have the votes to prevent it.
posted by empath at 1:52 AM on October 6, 2013

So if we supposedly don't want it, why are all these people trying to log on?

This is one of the more pernicious bits of misinformation, that a majority of people don't want Obamacare. It's a result of either sloppy polling or spin. A minority of people are against Obamacare. But when you add in those on the far left who feel that Obamacare is maybe probably a step in the right direction but doesn't go far enough--in other words the folks who want at least a public option and preferably single payer--when you add in the far left and the far right, you get a majority, barely.
posted by zardoz at 3:11 AM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

I think all this what-if analysis is fun, but perhaps beside the point. The credit rating agencies, to retain any kind of validity, are going to have to cut America's credit rating in advance of any default. That is when s--t gets real.

This is not to say that the current situation isn't already having lots of horrid consequences. Just that every other possible actor is entrenched. I believe a credit downgrade will be the precipitating event. To what, I can't predict.
posted by newdaddy at 4:56 AM on October 6, 2013

The credit rating agencies, to retain any kind of validity, are going to have to cut America's credit rating in advance of any default. That is when s--t gets real.

Nope. Shit gets real when the bond market panics. The credit ratings agencies are filled with your cross-eyed, booger-eating types and nobody on Wall Street really pays them any heed.
posted by indubitable at 6:38 AM on October 6, 2013 [4 favorites]

Ironmouth, the previous debt ceiling battle not only legitimized the blackmail we are currently fighting off, it cut $917 billion as part of the initial deal and included the disastrous sequester cuts we are now about to lock in long term. It was totally unnecessary and a complete crock of shit.

Obama WANTED to make those cuts anyway, he was trying to pass a Grand Bargain since at least early 2010, with the dangerously naive belief that an agreement would end these paralyzing spending fights for good. He felt that the 2011 debt ceiling crisis gave him cover to make a Grand Bargain slashing Social Security and Medicare (with some token tax increases included to make the numbers work), and delivering the promised $4 trillion in spending reductions, which he could never otherwise do without the threat of default because liberals would rightly scream betrayal. The only reason that didnt happen was Boehner couldn't get the teabaggers to take even that lopsided deal and declare victory.

Obama has tried time and time again surrender to every austerity demand the teabaggers have made, and they refuse to take yes for an answer keep moving the goalposts farther and farther to the right. This time they've gone so far as to demand his de facto resignation from the presidency just after winning relection, which finally seems to be the one thing Obama isnt willing to concede.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:40 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

It's no different than their jackassery about compulsory auto insurance or the seatbelt law.

You know, a case can be made that these are public goods, but there's no need for mockery around the fact that these things involve taking away rights. They absolutely involve taking away rights. The question for most is whether taking away those rights is a public good for others.

In the case of auto insurance, by mandating it, you are forcing people to pay constant and compulsory costs for owning a car. Even if you never drive it. Even if you are saving it for an emergency. You are thus putting a strong cost on rapid travel, and preventing people from their means of escaping unpleasant situations if they don't have cash, without having legal consequences.

In the case of health insurance, by mandating it, you are forcing people to pay constant and compulsory costs for being alive - even ones that do not want to be. There is, under this system, no way you can say, "Well, I'm old - it's just not worth it to me anymore to pay money to go to the doctor. I've lived a long and full life." Thus, short of suicide, it bleeds transitional wealth.

The case that's often made is "Well, the ER will have to take you anyway", but the interesting thing is that we act like that has always been there. It has not. Prior to the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (passed in 1986, not long ago at all), hospitals could, in fact, turn away people that they did not believe could pay.

It would actually be quite easy to reverse that extremely recent change, such that hospitals were not required to take people without health insurance. Then allow people to opt out of health insurance, and it actually costs the taxpayer nothing and you're not taking away anyone's right to live without paying premiums for the privilege.
posted by corb at 6:42 AM on October 6, 2013

I really want Obama to give a speech urging people not to jump off of bridges, just to see how the Tea Party would react.
posted by 1970s Antihero at 6:56 AM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

This is something that has been bothering me for quite a while (at least since the last time that the GOP decided to play chicken with hitting the debt limit, which was, what, a year ago?):

The general assumption seems to be "hitting the debt ceiling will by definition mean defaulting on the debt". And I don't mean just here on Metafilter; I mean that seems to be the conventional wisdom that's bandied around everywhere. But I just don't see why that would be true, and in fact I suspect it wouldn't be, so I think maybe I'm just missing something that is obvious to others.

We don't borrow money so that we can pay the debt on the money we borrowed. We borrow money so that we can pay the debt on the money we borrowed, do other things, and do still other things on top of those things. The US federal government paid $223 billion in net interest last year. Meanwhile it took in $1.6 trillion in taxes and other income, not including those taxes dedicated to Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid.

SS/MediX don't currently take in enough in taxes to pay for themselves indefinitely, but they've built up saved reserves that would last years even if they were to completely stop taking in taxes (which they wouldn't).

Moreover, while I assume we are constantly paying a significant chunk of change for principal on the debt rather than interest on the debt, we don't have to do so in a net sense (at least not just because of the debt ceiling): If the debt ceiling is $50, and we're at that $50 limit, and have a $6 payment of $5 principal and $1 interest due, we can pay the six dollars and then just borrow five more. Paying the $5 principal means we're only using $45 of our $50 limit, so borrowing another $5 does not push us past the debt limit. So "paying principal on the debt" does not need to be taken into account here.

So it seems to me that the government could easily pay the interest on the debt without incurring more debt, were it to decide that that's one of the most important things to do. So it's not that "hit the debt ceiling means can't pay the debt"; rather, it's "hit the debt ceiling means can't do everything that we want to do". The government would have to decide which bills they want to pay and which they want to ignore, and which services they want to provide and which they want to stop. I assume that maintaining payments on existing debt would be viewed as a high priority item.

My guess is that we would:

Pay the IRS
Pay the interest on the debt
Pay Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid
Pay the military
Pay various other mandatory bills

Once the above things are paid for, we'd have something like $200-$250 billion to cover the rest of what the federal government does -- without having borrowed a single penny past the debt limit. Unfortunately, "the rest of what the federal government does" costs like $600-$650 billion. That is why we borrow money, not because we couldn't otherwise afford to pay the interest on money that we already have borrowed.

So it seems to me that hitting the debt limit would look a lot like... a shutdown. Except that the IRS gets paid.

Am I misunderstanding something about the fundamental nature of this?
posted by Flunkie at 6:56 AM on October 6, 2013

corb, just think of insurance as suppressive fire and you should be able to figure it out.
posted by Big_B at 7:09 AM on October 6, 2013 [17 favorites]

It would actually be quite easy to reverse that extremely recent change, such that hospitals were not required to take people without health insurance. Then allow people to opt out of health insurance, and it actually costs the taxpayer nothing and you're not taking away anyone's right to live without paying premiums for the privilege.

On the other hand, the uninsured poor who do want to live would get the right to die untreated, leaving whatever family they had to fend for themselves. "Opting out" would not always be a choice, but often a necessity.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:16 AM on October 6, 2013 [5 favorites]

Rustic Etruscan: Aren't there subsidies for low-income households to obtain insurance under the ACA, or am I misreading it? I remember one of the selling points being that the requirement to buy insurance would not in fact burden the poor.
posted by corb at 7:23 AM on October 6, 2013

Well yes, there are, but only because other people are paying for it. I'm not really sure that I understand the basis of the question: You seem to be positing a scenario where someone's "right to live without paying premiums for the privilege" is sacrosanct, but a person's right to live without paying premiums for the privilege of other people's rights to live is not.
posted by Flunkie at 7:30 AM on October 6, 2013 [4 favorites]

Nonetheless, without the penalty for the uninsured, many poor people wouldn't even buy the subsidized insurance, which, incidentally, would drive up the prices for everyone. If they didn't have the emergency room as a last resort, they would have no care at all.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 7:35 AM on October 6, 2013

In the case of auto insurance, by mandating it, you are forcing people to pay constant and compulsory costs for owning a car. Even if you never drive it. Even if you are saving it for an emergency.

However, many auto insurance companies do have reduced rate packages for people who do only save it for an emergency.

You are thus putting a strong cost on rapid travel, and preventing people from their means of escaping unpleasant situations if they don't have cash, without having legal consequences.

....you're saying that the insurance is the prohibitive cost for people without cash, instead of the car itself?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:41 AM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

So it seems to me that the government could easily pay the interest on the debt without incurring more debt, were it to decide that that's one of the most important things to do. So it's not that "hit the debt ceiling means can't pay the debt"; rather, it's "hit the debt ceiling means can't do everything that we want to do". The government would have to decide which bills they want to pay and which they want to ignore, and which services they want to provide and which they want to stop. I assume that maintaining payments on existing debt would be viewed as a high priority item.

Flunkie, it's not that easy.
Payments are automated and go out automatically once they're due. It's a computerized and rather complicated system. Of course you could reprogram it, but that would take more than two weeks.

So at least for this time, a prioritization of payments seems to be impossible.
posted by sour cream at 7:41 AM on October 6, 2013

The question for most is whether taking away those rights is a public good for others.

I'm not sure how this is still a question. Countries with universal and/or single-payer health care usually have health indices far better than that of the US across the board.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:49 AM on October 6, 2013 [13 favorites]

You are thus putting a strong cost on rapid travel, and preventing people from their means of escaping unpleasant situations if they don't have cash, without having legal consequences.

....you're saying that the insurance is the prohibitive cost for people without cash, instead of the car itself?

This derail is about to move into the specific details about why a hypothetical family that happens to be strapped for cash also must afford a car for the purposes of an analogy. That's a dangerous, speculative place that no one will enjoy visiting.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:51 AM on October 6, 2013 [10 favorites]

It would actually be quite easy to reverse that extremely recent change, such that hospitals were not required to take people without health insurance.

Do you really think so? I cannot imagine this getting a lot of support. It's been argued that EMTALA already socialized medicine and the problem is just paying the bill, but there's not a lot of talk about how to reverse EMTALA. It was passed for a reason - it was socially controversial to turn dying patients away from hospital doors.

This is the major problem with a lot of libertarianish Americans - they are very concerned about their rights but consider any responsibilities to be evil impositions. But the fact is, all rights come with responsibilities. That's how social contracts work. If you want interstates, a military, social security, an FDA, national parks, a justice system, or any of various other basic structures of our country, you have to pay taxes, vote, and respect the law. It doesn't mean you accept everything blindly. it just means you're part of a society.
posted by mdn at 7:57 AM on October 6, 2013 [29 favorites]

That's a dangerous, speculative place that no one will enjoy visiting.

Seriously, maybe consider not doing that here.
posted by jessamyn at 8:00 AM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

The government would have to decide which bills they want to pay and which they want to ignore, and which services they want to provide and which they want to stop.

this is the same government that can't seem to decide to keep itself running and may not be able to decide to raise the debt ceiling

and although it could be decided to pay the debt first - without some kind of agreement on what to pay and what not to pay, we would be out of money before a year was up, wouldn't we?

i see nothing good coming out of this
posted by pyramid termite at 8:13 AM on October 6, 2013

The ‘non-essential’ parts of government that shut down are actually quite essential

Though the big social insurance programs are still running, many federal programs that directly target those in the most need are either empty or running on fumes. Because of its ability to ensure a basic minimum, borrow and thus lean against the business cycle, and pool risk at the national level, the federal government plays an important role in providing for those most in need. This is at risk under the shutdown.

As Bryce Covert of Think Progress, explained in an e-mail, “Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, known as WIC, is perhaps the most important safety net program that's getting zero dollars from the shutdown. But Congress didn't extend TANF, which expired Sept. 30 too, so that's also getting zero dollars. And childcare subsidies, which rely on both federal grants and TANF dollars, are now also seeing no new money. There are other social service programs getting hit, like Head Start, Supplies for food pantries, Meals on Wheels.” That’s millions of people at risk for no good reason.

posted by zombieflanders at 8:14 AM on October 6, 2013 [4 favorites]

Does he even have the authority to sell off plant and land to try and square the circle? I thought that power also rested solely with congress?

Where does it say that in Article I? The Constitution makes no mention of selling physical plant.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:15 AM on October 6, 2013

There is, under this system, no way you can say, "Well, I'm old - it's just not worth it to me anymore to pay money to go to the doctor. I've lived a long and full life."

If you're old, you're already on Medicare and nothing will change.
posted by KathrynT at 8:28 AM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

I really want Obama to give a speech urging people not to jump off of bridges, just to see how the Tea Party would react.

Well they managed to somehow oppose the First Lady's campaign to get people to drink more water.
posted by empath at 8:30 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Punishers Want To Run The Country or We Are All Tipped Waitstaff Now.
TL?DR?--Shorter: Republicans are the dissatisfied and angry diners at the table of life.

It's a long post, but it makes a good case that conservatives' ire at federal workers comes from the same place as the desire of some restaurant patrons to dole out bad tips to re-balance the social hierarchy. (The blog series from the restaurant owner who eliminated tips at his restaurant was covered previously on MetaFilter).
posted by tonycpsu at 8:31 AM on October 6, 2013 [9 favorites]

There is, under this system, no way you can say, "Well, I'm old - it's just not worth it to me anymore to pay money to go to the doctor. I've lived a long and full life."

An elderly person can refuse medical care. Its a legal right. This is just dumb.
posted by Ironmouth at 8:39 AM on October 6, 2013 [4 favorites]

Let's maybe not widen this out into a general debate on libertarianism? We've kind of had that debate with these same players before; discussing the actual shutdown situation in specific is more the topic of the actual thread.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 8:41 AM on October 6, 2013 [3 favorites]

Let's be crystal clear - this thread is not about any one user's view about the ACA and playing "well actually" games with nitpicking details. Anyone who wants to have that conversation can start a new thread go to Chat or MeMail people individually.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:08 AM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

But there is a great amount of opposition to the idea that someone can be forced to purchase a service, with no ability to opt out, simply for being a citizen. And I think people don't really understand how deep this opposition goes.

George Washington pushed for a bill forcing all able-bodied men to by a gun and ammo. That law passed and he signed it.

Second the idea that in a democracy the opposition of a small amount of people should triumph due to the depth of opposition of those few is anethema to democracy. The concept that a few people should override the many on an issue as prosaic as the budget is the end of a democracy. The polling says far less than half the government approves shutting down the government to shut down the ACA (which has been backed off of anyway).

The reason this is so bad is that its a dog-and-pony show. Its an attempt to show to racist white voters that GOPers acted as irrationally angry at the President as they feel. When the GOP congressman said it was about getting something because certain people feel disrespected about it, its hitting it right on the head. Obamacare ending isn't even on the table anymore.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:14 AM on October 6, 2013

Despite GOP Resistance, Obamacare Competition 'Robust' Among Health Plans
posted by Artw at 9:18 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

In a reversal from yesterday, Boehner now claims he is unable to pass a debit limit increase without attaching conditions. Of course, he doesn't have the votes for a clean debt limit increase in the same sense that he doesn't have the votes for a clean CR. This is really a detonator-in-hand moment and I wonder how the markets will react on Monday. I still don't believe that Boehner would be willing to kick off a global economic meltdown, but this sort of brinksmanship is getting really dangerous.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:18 AM on October 6, 2013

Those are not huge numbers, and it would quiet those people and remove the bitterest opposition. But somehow that's not really considered as an option - which is why those people - very very angry about it all - are pushing their legislators to DO something. And like it or not, those legislators would be abrogating their responsibilities to ignore those voters.

Drawing this back around to the way the budget and debt limit crises re playing out: the government shutting/"slimming" down is pretty much what the people who elected the Tea Partiers wanted, so theoretically they're just doing their job as well. Yet we ultimately hired our Congress (House and Senate) to run our government. It's hard to govern when there's a significant fraction of the electorate devoted to seeing that the government fails, and many rational solutions are off the table. For instance: raising taxes to balance the budget is never a consideration, though that's a far wider ideological problem than the Tea Party. You can't get most Democrats to vote for an extra penny of taxes on the 1%.

I don't think the Tea Partiers understand (or care) about the debt ceiling other than as a lever, though, and that scares me. One hopes it also scares the crap out of all the filthy rich money guys like the Koch brothers and that whatever control they have on people like Boehner to make sure we don't default and drag the financial system of the world down with us because a bunch of Tea Party voters and congresscritters are mad they don't get to treat the waitstaff as nastily as they like. (That waitstaff article really resonated with me, too: it's all about people who have less privilege lashing out, and not just at Obama, though he's a big target.)
posted by immlass at 9:18 AM on October 6, 2013

according to this reuters article, the split isn't as large as some think it is
posted by pyramid termite at 9:30 AM on October 6, 2013

One user on a website should not be used as a proxy for an entire irate community; I think that many of us have played that role at different times and it isn't very much fun. If folks would like a portrait of the community, they might want to read the report Drinky Die linked upthread.
posted by Going To Maine at 9:32 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

In a reversal from yesterday, Boehner now claims he is unable to pass a debit limit increase without attaching conditions.

I'm really astounded by the cowardice of this man. Rather than risk his own job, which he could quit today comfortably, he's risking hundreds of thousands or perhaps even millions of other peoples' jobs. And for what? Just to hold up the appearance that they've always been at war with Eastasia? All it took in 2009 was directing the 2-minutes hate at the ACA in order to erase the history that it's a conservative and Republican-inspired policy solution. If Limbaugh and the rest of coterie of 2-minutes hate programs would announce that we've always been at war with Eurasia, we could continue on with our conservative health care bill, they could continue to demonize Obama as Emmanuel Goldstein, and hopefully health care costs could be kept in check.
posted by Llama-Lime at 9:33 AM on October 6, 2013 [7 favorites]

One comment deleted; again, it sucks for conversation if a thread becomes all about one person.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 9:38 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

As was linked upthread, I think it's a mistake to assume that the very rich like the Kochs can't also be completely crazed with power to the point of being willing to cause a default. The darkest assumption is that they see such a thing as a moneymaking/power grab opportunity. That may or may not be insane, depending on what you think their long-term game is.

We all know that a crashing society will ultimately hurt the rich too, but they are perfectly capable of convincing themselves otherwise. Or worse, looking forward to it.
posted by emjaybee at 9:43 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

Poll: Shutdown Hurting Republicans in Battleground Districts
posted by Artw at 9:43 AM on October 6, 2013 [5 favorites]

The darkest assumption is that they see such a thing as a moneymaking/power grab opportunity. That may or may not be insane, depending on

Well, they're basically Vulture Capitalists, right? Anything short of full on societal collapse benefits them.

Shiiiiiiiiit.
posted by Artw at 9:47 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

Not sure if this showed up on Metafilter before, but here's a New Yorker article on the Kochs from August 30: Covert Operations: The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama
posted by Going To Maine at 9:53 AM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

Oops. That article is from August 30, 2010. Still good, though.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:01 AM on October 6, 2013

Its not like they've changed tack though.
posted by Artw at 10:05 AM on October 6, 2013

I've read through most of this depressing as all hell thread over the last few days and I have a question. Is there no way to compel the Speaker to bring a vote on something? He claims the votes are not there for a clean debt limit increase. What if another member were to poll each rep, find there actually *are* enough votes. Can nothing be done? Can he choose never to bring a vote on anything indefinitely (or until his position is up for re-election, I suppose)?
posted by Glinn at 10:08 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

He claims the votes are not there for a clean debt limit increase. What if another member were to poll each rep, find there actually *are* enough votes. Can nothing be done?

A discharge petition, mentioned above, is the standard way of compelling a speaker to take up legislation that s/he doesn't want to bring to the floor, however, party discipline generally prevents this from happening. Since the speaker has many ways to make life hell for anyone in the majority party, signing a discharge petition carries great political risk, and very little political benefit. (In this case, there's also the problem that it takes two weeks for the speaker to be compelled to act on a discharge petition, and we can't just wait around for two weeks while people are out of work.)
posted by tonycpsu at 10:11 AM on October 6, 2013

Alternately, maybe a "Balls for Boehner" campaign, where people mail him basketballs, baseballs, ping pong balls, etc. upon which they have scrawled the words "VOTE!"
posted by Going To Maine at 10:14 AM on October 6, 2013 [7 favorites]

I think Glinn's proposing something less formal, though, and one I've wondered about too. Can somebody relatively trustworthy among the Rs try to get some idea of how many votes would be there? Or, given the frantic intraparty wheeling-and-dealing that seems to govern votes on high-profile bills, is that just pissing in the wind? At any rate, I suspect Boehner'd rather pretend the votes aren't there, even if they were.

we can't just wait around for two weeks while people are out of work.

I sincerely hope that turns out to be true.
posted by Rykey at 10:21 AM on October 6, 2013

Since the speaker has many ways to make life hell for anyone in the majority party, signing a discharge petition carries great political risk, and very little political benefit.

Thank you for the answer. So what if a moderate Repub did this is as a last act before bolting the party? Or an old-timer on his way out the door, because it's brave and necessary and would save millions of people from going hungry or getting services they need. Or destroying their families or savings. Etc. Or just decides it's time to get on the right side of history.

I appreciate that we don't have the two weeks while people are out of work, but I don't see any indication that anything else will happen in that time. And if someone were to put this ball into motion, maybe other things would happen... uh, that's all I got. : /
posted by Glinn at 10:26 AM on October 6, 2013

The debacle. Brought to you in part by Heritage Action for America; Tea Party Patriots; Americans for Prosperity; FreedomWorks; Club for Growth; Generation Opportunity; Young Americans for Liberty; Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce; Center to Protect Patient Rights; American Commitment; 60 Plus; and the Koch brothers.

NYT: A Federal Budget Crisis Months in the Planning
posted by Mister Bijou at 10:26 AM on October 6, 2013 [10 favorites]

I don't think there's any reason to doubt that House leadership on both sides has a pretty clear idea of how any vote would break down. When Boehner talks about not having the votes, the vote he is really talking about is the one which might remove him from the office of Speaker, should he, from the Tea Party perspective, "fold" on this issue.
posted by feloniousmonk at 10:29 AM on October 6, 2013

So Boehner saying today he does /not/ have to votes to pass a clean bill just makes me w ant to say, bring it up, prove it. You've wasted so m much time bringing up endless defunding Obamacare bills you certainly could take a few hours and actually try something new.

And, anyone else think a shutdown is what some in the House actually wants? They finally are starting to kill government off as they very public want.
posted by edgeways at 11:15 AM on October 6, 2013

Making sure all your citizens have healthcare isn't just a net moral good (which should be obvious) or a net financial good (even more obvious) but it's also a self protection measure as much as a policing or defense. No one wants their butcher suffering from hepatitis to avoid the cost of going to a doctor by leaving his disease untreated; a typhoid Mary working in their local deli; an untreated narcoleptic operating heavy machinery or even the mentally ill mowing down cops with their car. All these things become more likely when you have a percentage of the population self insuring.

Ironmouth: "In the end, the current bondholders would sue, the government would pay, eventually by selling the physical plant and land."

If it comes to this let us know; Canadians have always wanted someplace warm to visit in the summer.
posted by Mitheral at 11:16 AM on October 6, 2013 [3 favorites]

Artw's link and the sublinks to polling PDFs suggest that the numbers even before the shutdown were bad for enough Rs to threaten their hold on the House.

Add then there's the growing likelihood that the GOP is unlikely to get money for the next election cycle from ANY of their rich patrons beside the Kochs... Of course, a big chunk of Wall Street had already defected to the Ds, only threatening to go back when Obama threatened to implement some actual financial regulation.

But just because this is a sure losing strategy doesn't mean they have any real incentive to stop. So just hang tight until next year's November elections... how much worse can it get until then? (Don't answer that.)
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:24 AM on October 6, 2013

onlyconnect: "If the left can keep from overspending"

You misspelled "right".
posted by tonycpsu at 11:26 AM on October 6, 2013 [14 favorites]

Republican Insurgents Forget Their Political ABCs
posted by Artw at 11:48 AM on October 6, 2013

I'm not sure how this is still a question. Countries with universal and/or single-payer health care usually have health indices far better than that of the US across the board.

This is true, I just heard a lecture on it. Here is the report if you're up for a little reading. If you need some good news, America is #1 in at least one benchmark: self-reported health! We're not the healthiest, but we darn well think we are!
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:49 AM on October 6, 2013 [13 favorites]

My new theory for how the Republicans could get out of this is that they should get the Democrats to make the barest of minimum concessions on the ACA - maybe the medical device tax that was being discussed last week - and then they should just act as if they won. Reality is clearly not a high priority here, so they should just tell their base that they successfully killed Obamacare. Trumpet it everywhere, make it the storyline on Fox News. Given that most of the Tea Party folks believe wildly inaccurate things about being issued Obamacare cards and being subject to death panels and so forth, when none of that happens they will believe that the Republicans came through for them. When people start getting covered under the health exchanges and are pleased about that, the Republicans can take credit for it and point out that the ACA was basically a Republican idea in the first place. That it was Obamacare that they were against, but that's dead now, thanks to their heroics.

I actually think maybe this could work, but it would require that the Tea Party Congress folks be cynical schemers rather than true believers with a high capacity for cognitive dissonance.
posted by yarrow at 11:53 AM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

We're not the healthiest, but we darn well think we are!

U-S-A! U-S-A! We're Number One! We're Numb--*vomits* *dies of dysentery*
posted by tonycpsu at 12:00 PM on October 6, 2013 [11 favorites]

The older I get and the wider and uglier the divide seems between the left and the right, the more I wonder whether we really should just physically split into two countries that then get to try to sustain themselves according to their ideological principles without interference from the other party.

This sounds kind of appealing on paper, but keep in mind that the Right would control areas that are full of Black people (and poor people, and women for that matter) and they do not deserve to suffer just because they got stuck with political rulers who adhere to anti-democratic, plutocratic and patriarchal normative positions.

The basis of our modern government's legitimacy, especially owing to American's somewhat unique history, is that we do not permit minorities or oppressed groups to be cut out of decision-making or denied their rights simply because they happen to live in areas that have monstrous histories of oppression which live on in modern political orientations. Clearly that legitimacy is in question, especially now with the voter suppression laws that are being passed and this shut-down, but that's a big issue which would be at stake if Republicans were permitted to have their own country.
posted by clockzero at 12:06 PM on October 6, 2013 [19 favorites]

Building on what clockzero said, Southern ancestors of today's GOP tried splitting the country in two 152 years ago, and well, we know how well that worked out.
posted by mostly vowels at 12:21 PM on October 6, 2013

clockzero, I was envisioning a split where people had to make a choice and then physically move according to the party alignment they chose. If you are poor or black or a woman or a homosexual etc. and you still choose to vote Republican, as many do, then maybe you should be forced to try living with the consequences of your choices.

On the other hand there are all sorts of things about this proposal that don't work, like the impossibility of geographically splitting up the US, how to deal with families (can't really split up a James Carville/Mary Matalin family), and the unfair effect on the kids who don't get to choose, etc. I understand the idea doesn't really logistically work, but the real enmity between the parties seems to be growing.
posted by onlyconnect at 12:28 PM on October 6, 2013

Arrange for dual citizenship for citizens of either and free passage between the two new countries. It's obviously not a universal solution (family splits if nothing else) and long term it'll create conflict because Obamaland is likely to have looser immigration policies than the Republic of Tea Parties but it would at least maintain choice.

Historically though people are very reluctant to pull up stakes and move to better conditions while current conditions are still tolerable.
posted by Mitheral at 1:06 PM on October 6, 2013

The political divisions in the US split along urban/non-urban lines a lot more than they do state by state. You can't really split it up in any sane way without just creating the same conflicts on a smaller scale.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:10 PM on October 6, 2013 [7 favorites]

Reality is clearly not a high priority here, so they should just tell their base that they successfully killed Obamacare

Given reality's low priority here, they could just tell their base that they killed Obamacare without getting any concessions at all.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:20 PM on October 6, 2013 [5 favorites]

GOP Candidate Won’t Pose with Cruz
posted by Artw at 1:21 PM on October 6, 2013

Given reality's low priority here, they could just tell their base that they killed Obamacare without getting any concessions at all.

Right. But there has to be some event to break the stalemate. So they should settle on some obscure change, get to Democrats to go for it, call it victory, and declare Obamacare dead.
posted by yarrow at 1:49 PM on October 6, 2013

But there has to be some event to break the stalemate. So they should settle on some obscure change, get to Democrats to go for it, call it victory, and declare Obamacare dead.

Democrats should tell Republicans that they will allow a clean CR to pass with the name "Obamacare/Osamacare Is Evil And Democrats Are Poopyheads Act Of 2013 For The Further Patriotizing Of Patriotic Patriots Who Like To Patriotify With Jesus And Ronald Reagan".
posted by Flunkie at 2:02 PM on October 6, 2013 [16 favorites]

"Bill To Replace Obamacare With Affordable Care"
posted by Artw at 2:04 PM on October 6, 2013 [15 favorites]

So Boehner saying today he does /not/ have to votes to pass a clean bill just makes me w ant to say, bring it up, prove it.

You have a future in the spokesperson business.

"If he's right, why not prove it?" White House press secretary Jay Carney asked on Twitter
posted by Drinky Die at 2:15 PM on October 6, 2013 [4 favorites]

Ironmouth: Where in the Constitution is the President authorized to issue debt?

Which is where the platinum coin comes in. There is nothing prohibiting the President from selling assets. And the Constitution specifically provides that the Treasury has the power to mint coins in whatever denomination it likes. Further, this is currently done routinely every single day. The Treasury mints one-dollar coins for about 16 cents. It sends those coins over to the Fed and the Fed credits the checking account of the U.S. Treasury, not with the 16 cents it cost to create the coin but for the full dollar of its face value.

There is nothing legally preventing the Treasury from minting a coin with a face value of $1 trillion. It may seem weird, but it certainly isn't illegal. It doesn't increase the debt because the Treasury has simply sold an asset to the Fed just like it does every day of the week when it mints dollar coins for 16 cents.

The benefit of this method is that it doesn't have any of the drawbacks of issuing questionable bonds using the 14th Amendment. The Fed simply credits the checking account of the Treasury with $1 trillion and the Treasury simply continues to pay its bills, writing checks on its checking account as always. The bond market isn't involved and doesn't care.

Later, when the debt limit is finally raised, the Treasury raises money by auctioning new bonds, just like always and uses the proceeds to buy back the $1 trillion coin from the Fed, melts it down and everything is back to normal.
posted by JackFlash at 2:17 PM on October 6, 2013

GOP Candidate Won’t Pose with Cruz

As a Virginian, I will (begrudgingly) consider a Cuccinelli beatdown next month as a silver lining in this shameful shutdown cloud.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 2:20 PM on October 6, 2013 [6 favorites]

(Personally, watching the Boehner interview right now repeating his talking point about providing fairness and complaining about the waivers, my response as President might be to say, "Fine, the employer mandate is now in effect at the demand of the Speaker of the House and all other waivers are withdrawn. The law is fair now." Prepare to drown in the corporate QQ. Of course, I'm an easily angered asshole so don't make me President.)
posted by Drinky Die at 2:24 PM on October 6, 2013

>The general assumption seems to be "hitting the debt ceiling will by definition mean defaulting on the debt"... But I just don't see why that would be true, and in fact I suspect it wouldn't be, so I think maybe I'm just missing something that is obvious to others.

Some people seem to think that "defaulting on the debt" simply means not paying bondholders. But defaulting doesn't just mean "the" debt. It means "any" debt. So while the government could pay bondholders and some other creditors, it couldn't pay them all. Somewhere, somebody would be cut short, whether it is federal workers, defense contractors, federal office landlords, whomever.

There is a principal in finance called universal default. A potential creditor, for example mortgage lender, considers you to be in default even if you pay your mortgage on time, but fail to pay your utility bill, your car payment or your credit card bill. You won't be able to get a home equity loan from your lender, even if you pay your mortgage every month, because you are in default on your other bills. You are considered high risk, no longer a creditworthy borrower.

So just because you can always pay bondholders doesn't mean you aren't in default. It isn't "the" debt. It is "any" debt. The credit rating of the U.S. isn't dependent on just bonds.
posted by JackFlash at 2:37 PM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

I keep thinking of details. The food people forgot in the fridge before they left. The dying office plants languishing in closed-up offices. All the things that will be spoiled in addition to plans and timelines.

I know someone who has been a government employee for one agency for nearly 40 years. Her retirement party was supposed to be soon, but it looks like the date might come and go during the shutdown. They can reschedule the party-- maybe she can come in special for it-- but if this thing doesn't end soon there won't be enough time for her to prepare to leave, and decades of institutional knowledge leave with her.
posted by zennie at 2:45 PM on October 6, 2013 [4 favorites]

If they pay the bonds FIRST, it'll get a better reaction from the Markets and the Ratings people more than any other strategy, so I'm personally budgeting under the assumption that my November Social Security Disability will be LATE and December will be EVEN LATER. Social Security will most likely get 2nd priority, but not enough to be 'on-time'.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:48 PM on October 6, 2013

>The credit ratings agencies are filled with your cross-eyed, booger-eating types and nobody on Wall Street really pays them any heed.

That's only true to a certain extent. The S&P down-rating in 2011 didn't cause much distress since it was only one agency. But if all three major rating agencies down-rated government bonds it would cause catastrophic upsets.

There are trillions of dollars of financial entities that are keyed to AAA rated assets. For example many pension funds, endowments and mutual funds are contractually required to hold a certain percentage of AAA rated assets. A lot of short term loans must be collateralized by AAA-rated assets. If government bonds are down-rated, they would be contractually required on short notice to sell hundreds of billions of bonds at a loss and buy other appropriate rated bonds at a premium. This would cause widespread financial chaos.
posted by JackFlash at 2:53 PM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

♫ Hey, I'm the minority,
And this is craaaazy.
But defund Obamacare,
Or I'll kill this baby.

And all the voters,
Try and cage me.
But my methods are evil,
So I'll kill this baby.

Before I came into your life,
The government wasn't so bad.
Wasn't so so bad. ♫
posted by codacorolla at 3:00 PM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

Are there enough other AAA rated assets out there to replace all the US bonds that may "have to" be cashed in?
posted by oneswellfoop at 3:00 PM on October 6, 2013

>The credit ratings agencies are filled with your cross-eyed, booger-eating types and nobody on Wall Street really pays them any heed.

I feel like this is pretty flippant and dismissive. I am not a money person but I thought that in large part the credit agencies were the (a) cause of the housing bubble because they allowed all kinds of sketchy mortgages to be hidden under triple-A rated investment vehicles. It's a sign that someone at least, someone with a lot of money to invest, took them seriously.

Also I thought part of the deal was that the credit ratings are the reason why the Federal government enjoys the low low interest rates it has for the longest time now. If those interest rates started hedging up, even a bit, that would blow out a lot of our long-term assumptions about the serviceability of the debt. Please correct me if any of this is wrong.
posted by newdaddy at 3:34 PM on October 6, 2013

The president should just get money by selling off federal assets in tea party districts to the highest bidder. Military bases, national parks and so on.
posted by empath at 4:49 PM on October 6, 2013 [4 favorites]

Let's take a moment to recognize that there are lots of non-insane voters in even the reddest of states. There's just not enough to get the Teahadists from getting elected. We are all suffering for the behavior of these shameful politicians, but some of our allies have to live with people who vote for these nutjobs. I feel for you folks and hope we can somehow support you better next election.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:37 PM on October 6, 2013 [13 favorites]

The president should just get money by selling off federal assets in tea party districts to the highest bidder. Military bases, national parks and so on.

Is the President authorized to do something like this? I definitely don't see anything explicitly in Article II about it, but maybe selling off government assets is normal operating procedure?
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 5:42 PM on October 6, 2013

JackFlash: "There is nothing legally preventing the Treasury from minting a coin with a face value of $1 trillion"

I hope that if this indeed comes to pass the Mint doesn't use a boring pocket sized platinum coin instead they use a massive Rai Stone fashioned from granite and when it comes time to pay the money back they slice the coin up and use it to clad a new monument in one of DC's pocket parks.

empath: "The president should just get money by selling off federal assets in tea party districts to the highest bidder. Military bases, national parks and so on."

Start with licensing Interstate interchanges. Resident plates pay a buck for the entrance ramp; out of state plates are free.
posted by Mitheral at 5:46 PM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

However the trillion dollar coin gets made, I hope there's a ridiculous heist movie made with that coin as the MacGuffin. (In the last scene you find out the team's disguise guy was posing as Ted Cruz all along!)
posted by jason_steakums at 5:53 PM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

>The credit ratings agencies are filled with your cross-eyed, booger-eating types and nobody on Wall Street really pays them any heed.

I had this half written last time. Some schlub who tends the vending machines at the Treasury building finds one in a coin box, has the night of his life, then gets chased and targeted by various groups; he almost but doesn't put it in the coin box after lighting a candle at a church. The big reveal in the third reel is that the president had a whole truckload of them minted. Vending-guy hijacks the whole armored truck (from the CIA or the Chinese syndicate) and drives it into the Devil's Hole (near Niagara Falls).

Hollywood - call me. Just call me, ok?
posted by newdaddy at 6:13 PM on October 6, 2013

Describing the negotiations he wanted with Mr. Obama, Mr. Boehner seemed to shift from demands that the president agree only to defund or delay his signature health care law — a nonnegotiable condition, as Mr. Obama sees it — to calling once again for deficit reduction talks that would result in savings from Medicare in particular.
posted by feloniousmonk at 6:39 PM on October 6, 2013

Hey, sure, agree to as many talks as it takes. Talking is free.
posted by Justinian at 6:58 PM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

As mentioned upthread, I like the "Balls For Boehner" campaign. They can't send me to Gitmo if I send a can of tennis balls to Boehner's office straight from amazon.com, can they? Sorry! I forgot. They can send me to Gitmo whenever they choose to. What a country! (And SO free!!)
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 7:04 PM on October 6, 2013

jason_steakums: "However the trillion dollar coin gets made, I hope there's a ridiculous heist movie made with that coin as the MacGuffin."

It's the best National Treasure sequel we could ever hope for.
posted by Copronymus at 7:16 PM on October 6, 2013 [5 favorites]

I think it's worth thinking about this: the Koch brothers and other ultra-wealthy types are global citizens. They are not tied down to any one nation. Hell, they aren't even tied to earth: within the next couple decades they will live in space stations, far above the ravages of a decimated earth.

In the immediate present, the Koch brothers stand only to gain by the collapse of the USA if they've played their cards right. Many billions are to made by shorting a failing country.

Who will be hurt by the collapse of the USA?

No one who really counts for anything. Not by the metric of the global elite.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:16 PM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

IIRC, Obama has said that nothing is negotiable as far as the debt ceiling is concerned. He is dead-set on not conceding anything in return for raising it, wary of legitimizing this tactic of extortion in the future.

Of course, now the conservative media is brazenly flipping the script and portraying Obama as the intransigent one intentionally flirting with disaster, ignoring the fact that the House Republicans are the ones insisting on attaching conditions to the debt ceiling in the first place. See, among others, Peggy Noonan (no link):

And if the president keeps not negotiating, he is going to look like the man who caused a U.S. government default—an outcome of a whole other order of magnitude. He’s going to look that way because he allowed himself to look that way. And the reasons for his stand look exactly like this: miscalculation, stubbornness and pride. [...] And once again there’s every sign No Drama Obama will add to the sense that he is really Endless Drama Obama—bringer of nonstop face-offs, constant brinksmanship, nerve-jangling cliffs.

Or Boehner himself:

"The nation's credit is at risk because of the administration's refusal to sit down and have a conversation," Boehner told ABC's "This Week," adding that there were not enough votes in the House of Representatives to pass a "clean" debt limit bill, without any conditions attached.

Asked if that meant the United States was headed towards a default if President Barack Obama did not negotiate ahead of an October 17 deadline to raise the debt ceiling, Boehner said: "That's the path we're on."

In other words:

My name is John Andrew Boehner. I live at 1011 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC, 20515. This is my confession.

If you're watching this tape, the United States has probably defaulted – thrown into economic chaos by the President of the United States, Barack Obama. Obama has been orchestrating a dangerous debt ceiling standoff for over a year now, and using me as his instrument.

Shortly after the 2012 elections, he asked that I use my speakership to fund Obamacare, or he would shut down the government, refuse to raise the debt ceiling, and do great harm to the American people.

I was... astounded. I... I always thought Obama was a very moral man, and I was particularly vulnerable at the time – something he knew and took advantage of. I was reeling from an election that was poised to bankrupt my party. Obama took me to the Treasury and showed me just how much money even a brush with default could lose. And I was weak. I didn't want my country to go into financial ruin, so I agreed.

Obama had a partner, a turncoat named Ted Cruz. Obama sold me into servitude to this man. And when I tried to quit, Cruz threatened my speakership. I didn't know where to turn. Eventually, Obama and Cruz had a falling-out. Things escalated. Cruz was able to arrange – uh, I guess... I guess you call it a "filibuster" – on Obamacare, and failed, but Obama was seriously insulted.

Obama was bent on revenge. Working with a man named Mark Meadows, he plotted frame the Tea Party for breaching the debt ceiling. The legislative process that he used was overseen by me, and he gave me no option in it.

I have often contemplated suicide, but I'm a coward. I wanted to go to the public, but I was frightened. Obama had risen to become the leader of the free world. To keep me in line, he threatened my district. My constituents had no idea of my activities, and were horrified to learn what I had done. I was in hell. I hated myself for what I had brought upon my country.

Recently, I tried once again to raise the debt ceiling, and in response, he gave me this. [Boehner points to the ongoing government shutdown] I can't take this anymore. I live in fear every day that Obama will prolong the shutdown, or worse, default on our debts. All I could think to do was to make this video and hope that the world will finally see this man for what he really is.

posted by Rhaomi at 7:31 PM on October 6, 2013 [30 favorites]

Ironmouth: "Imagine George W. Bush with the power to raise funds himself. Obama would be wrong to assert such a power. Him doing that is them winning."

This is why I think that if it comes down to it, the Platinum Proof option is the best. The optics would be no more or less horrible than the other options that don't involve the Republicans throwing us off the cliff or backing down. Legally speaking, it is current law that the executive branch can in fact mint such a coin, but that's the only reason it can be done. As far as I'm concerned, that's the dispositive advantage. After Obama uses the loophole, Congress can close the fucking thing so it doesn't set precedent for future stupid behavior.

I'm not sure yet whether a couple of days in default or a platinum coin would be worse. It's patently ridiculous that we should have to choose.
posted by wierdo at 7:32 PM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

Regardless of whatever merits the platinum coin idea may have or lack, the Treasury has said they don't believe it's legal for them to mint it, and more importantly the Fed has said that they would refuse to accept it for deposit.
posted by Flunkie at 7:43 PM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

Hahahahaha. You rule Rhaomi.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:43 PM on October 6, 2013

In the immediate present, the Koch brothers stand only to gain by the collapse of the USA if they've played their cards right. Many billions are to made by shorting a failing country.

This is, I think, a slightly misleading picture of the Kochs. If you look at that New Yorker profile, while it shows the Kochs as hell-bent on making the country into a purely self-serving, capitalist state in the name of libertarianism, it also shows them as men who are passionate about the country. They have invested millions of dollars into civic institutions like the Smithsonian and the American Ballet Theatre. They were raised on the John Birch Society and the passionately anti-communist ideals of their father. While these aren't necessarily positive viewpoints, nor necessarily pro-American (e.g. "Oh no! America isn't America anymore! Qatar is the new America!"), they are extremely likely to lean that way. That is to say, while the Kochs might be investing in breaking the country's spine, they probably aren't doing it with the goal of deliberately destroying the country, and so are probably not investing in shorting the nation.

Unless, I suppose, if they believe that seeing the debt ceiling go up in flames is good for the nation and also an opportunity to make a few bucks. I don't believe that to be the case, but it's an avenue for your darker suspicions.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:10 PM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

Also, from the New Yorker on October 4: What is John Bohener Scared of? It's a reading of Boehner's past trauma as a cause of his present indecision.
posted by Going To Maine at 8:14 PM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

So instead of, "Storm the Bastille" the next slogan we hear will be "Storm the Koch's residents!" I'm in the midwest so it's a really long walk, but it sounds OK to me.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:34 PM on October 6, 2013

My family members go back to work tomorrow, hurray! Good luck to those who are still shut down, hope it ends for you soon.
posted by onlyconnect at 8:52 PM on October 6, 2013

onlyconnect: "My family members go back to work tomorrow, hurray! Good luck to those who are still shut down, hope it ends for you soon."

Congrats!!! Now let's not forget those poor folks who are still screwed. Did I mention, "Fuck Boehner?" I think I forgot so I'll say it again "Fuck Boehner." Oh and fuck those 30 or so TP members of the House.
posted by InsertNiftyNameHere at 8:56 PM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

So how big does the bathtub have to be? Because the US Gov is starting to look pretty scrawny.
posted by Ray Walston, Luck Dragon at 9:36 PM on October 6, 2013

I give it till Thursday until this is over, with some exceedingly minor concessions from Obama to help the GOP save face.

Well ok Mefites. Any idea for what such exceedingly minor concessions could be?

- Obama lets Boehner sit in his chair in the Oval Office any time he wants on Tuesdays after 5pm.
- Boehner's office to be referred to from now on as the 'Rectangle Office'.
- The next big thing, whatever it is, can be called Boehnercare.
- juices made from carrots and orange squash from the White House garden, whenever he wants 'em.
- Cruz to get pantsed by Secret Service agents every day for a week.
- Midnight party on Lincoln's lap in the Lincoln Memorial.
- in DC, Tuesday is officially 'Coolday'
- Night at the opera at Kennedy Center with the Clintons, but only if it's Pagliacci.
posted by newdaddy at 10:12 PM on October 6, 2013 [16 favorites]

Perhaps, purely in the interest of deficit reduction, Obama could concede to another 10% across the board cut in defense expenditures. If it has to be minor, maybe just 1% or 2%.
posted by Llama-Lime at 10:26 PM on October 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

- Next panda born at the National Zoo to be named 'John B'.
posted by newdaddy at 10:42 PM on October 6, 2013 [7 favorites]

Rand Paul: America’s “gradual bankruptcy” more worrisome than default risk
So there's a vote for never raising the debt limit EVER. How many others among the Tea Partisans?
posted by oneswellfoop at 11:24 PM on October 6, 2013

The concessions will be pork for the Teapartiers home states, of course.
posted by annsunny at 11:29 PM on October 6, 2013 [2 favorites]

Does Rand Paul have the slightest idea what he's talking about? Because it seems like he's out of his element.
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:39 AM on October 7, 2013

It's sounding very much to me like this thing is nearing the end. Polls are indicating dwindling support for the small number of representatives who are holding the CR up, and business interests are lobbying heavily to get it resolved. I give it till Thursday until this is over, with some exceedingly minor concessions from Obama to help the GOP save face.

I see nothing that convinces me this doesn't go until the 11th hour (probably literally, as it did in 2011) on the 16th. If Boehner truly does want to avoid default more than any other concern, he has to wait until the last possible minute to avoid as much blowback as possible. Not that it will help him with the base, of course, but it might be enough to keep the gavel if he works something out with Pelosi and 20+ members of his caucus.

That being said, if he overestimates the spinal fortitude of the "moderates"--who have thus far made a lot of noise but lose bladder control whenever actual votes have come up--or underestimates the numbers of Teahadists, we're fucked. That's what has me worried: not that Boehner wants to do the relatively right thing eventually (I think he does), but whether or not he can.

Also, not that I think the chances are anything more than extremely slim, but if this does split the GOP, even temporarily, that's a bit of a win for me. Bonus points if it starts shifting Obama and the Dems back to the left.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:21 AM on October 7, 2013 [4 favorites]

Unfortunately, my vote is for the 16th as well.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:45 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

The tea party will absolutely not compromise. They have no incentive to. This is all about breaking boehner. He is going to lose his speakership over this.
posted by empath at 4:46 AM on October 7, 2013 [3 favorites]

From the Washington Post:

Now, Yoho is ready for a bigger fight. He doesn’t want to raise the debt ceiling — ever again. The experts, and Republican leaders, say that would trigger a financial catastrophe.

...

“I think we need to have that moment where we realize [we’re] going broke,” Yoho said. If the debt ceiling isn’t raised, that will sure as heck be a moment. “I think, personally, it would bring stability to the world markets,” since they would be assured that the United States had moved decisively to curb its debt.

The inmates really are running the asylum...
posted by dhens at 4:47 AM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Rand Paul: America’s “gradual bankruptcy” more worrisome than default risk

The Sane Universe: Actual, rapid bankruptcy more worrisome than potential, gradual bankruptcy.
posted by Rykey at 4:48 AM on October 7, 2013 [15 favorites]

In the event Congress fails to raise the debt ceiling, the treasury may have to prioritize payments. Could they prioritize by not paying Social Security in GOP districts only? Or wreak other mischief designed to hurt the Tea Party, like fail to pay soldiers? Basically it seems to me that failing to raise the debt ceiling gives the president a massive amount of new political power.
posted by miyabo at 6:36 AM on October 7, 2013

oneswellfoop: “Rand Paul: America’s 'gradual bankruptcy' more worrisome than default risk... So there's a vote for never raising the debt limit EVER. How many others among the Tea Partisans?”

I am no fan of Rand Paul – in fact, I dislike him very much, and in particular I disagree with him completely and think many of his strategies are dishonest – but he does not seem to have said that at all. In fact, the comments in the linked article don't compare the two at all. It appears that Salon is stretching them a bit to reach that headline.
posted by koeselitz at 6:49 AM on October 7, 2013

I think we breach the debt ceiling, nothing will force the teabaggers hand short of a market collapse. This is their last stand, they have nothing left to gain and are too blinded to realize that they still have much to lose.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:52 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

For those of you who mourned TBogg's departure from Firedoglake, he's back, but over at Raw Story. Today's update: I am Butthurticus! No, I am Butthurticus!

Lee refused to disclose which Republicans rose to attack him in that closed door meeting, but said that it was enough so that he “lost count.” He added that he was not clear why the Republicans who attacked him and Cruz did not reveal their identities.

“Did anyone rise to your defense,” Hewitt asked.

“Sort of,” Lee replied. “Not really.”
posted by emjaybee at 6:52 AM on October 7, 2013

So, did the commercial of Boehner as a baby make it on Sunday night football? Did it work?
posted by jadepearl at 7:02 AM on October 7, 2013

Ted Cruz: 'I Didn't Say Republicans Will Win' Shutdown Fight

He's even in denial of the reality of events that are happening in his life.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:23 AM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Well ok Mefites. Any idea for what such exceedingly minor concessions could be?

Obamacare now covers weekly tan sprays.
Oompa Loompas are now a protected class under Title VII.
Last Friday of each month is Hawaiian Shirt or Crazy Hat Day in Congress.

posted by entropicamericana at 8:38 AM on October 7, 2013 [4 favorites]

WH says Obama would accept short-term agreement on debt ceiling.
posted by emjaybee at 8:42 AM on October 7, 2013

Well ok Mefites. Any idea for what such exceedingly minor concessions could be?

Dem support for Boehner as Speaker of the House?
posted by mazola at 8:43 AM on October 7, 2013 [7 favorites]

America's radio telescopes have been shut down.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:00 AM on October 7, 2013

Well ok Mefites. Any idea for what such exceedingly minor concessions could be?

How about "turning him over to the pitchfork-wielding hordes last"?
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 9:03 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Umm, do Dems actually have a say? I thought speakership was whoever the party in power wants to have be their leader. That is, Republicans are the only ones who get a say on that, since it's their party. Democrats don't get a vote on that (and think how scary it would be if Repubs got a vote when Dems were in control of the House, if they have a say?)
posted by symbioid at 9:17 AM on October 7, 2013

Umm, do Dems actually have a say?

Yes! Speakership goes to whomever gets the most votes, regardless of party. It seems to us that it always goes to the party in control of the house because being in control of the house is defined as having the most votes. So what's being proposed here is that instead of Boehner's current coalition of Tea Party Republicans and moderate Republicans, Boehner would form a coalition of Democrats and moderate Republicans. The Democrats and 17(?) moderate Republicans would agree to support Boehner as speaker and then that coalition would have the most votes and would be in control of the House.
posted by chrchr at 9:21 AM on October 7, 2013 [6 favorites]

"The Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, who presides over the chamber, is elected by the members of the House, and is therefore traditionally the leader of the House Democratic Caucus or the House Republican Conference, whichever party has more voting members. " [Wikipedia]
posted by mazola at 9:21 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Everybody votes. The party with the majority has more votes if the vote stays along party lines.
posted by rdr at 9:21 AM on October 7, 2013

The last paragraph from the Discovery article dirigibleman linked to is ferocious:

"In the pursuit of an idiotic ideology, a very small group of politicians (with no idea about what they are fighting for, let alone the consequences) has shut down our eyes on the Cosmos. This is a reckless act that isn’t just a blip on the radar of knowledge; it will reverberate far beyond the shutdown — hurting science and the inquiring minds who investigate that science — long after the politicians decide to work for the U.S. people again."

...emphasis theirs.
posted by zyxwvut at 9:21 AM on October 7, 2013 [8 favorites]

I thought speakership was whoever the party in power wants to have be their leader. That is, Republicans are the only ones who get a say on that, since it's their party.

Article I, Section 2: "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers..."

The Constitution makes no reference to parties -- if the Tea Partiers wanted Rep. Lunatic and the Republicans nominated Rep. Boehner and the Democrats all voted for Boehner, he'd be the Speaker. (In fact, the Speaker doesn't technically have to be a Representative, but no one's ever pushed this.)
posted by Etrigan at 9:22 AM on October 7, 2013

Huh - ok, thanks for the info, I guess I always thought it was just a caucus vote. Interesting.
posted by symbioid at 9:22 AM on October 7, 2013

odinsdream: "There are tons of projects that you can't just stop working on without severe problems. Cryogenic sensors can't just be turned off. Scheduled events that require the fucking solar system to be in the right configuration can't be re-started in November."

Whatever, we are humans and supreme will of our capitalist might can dictate whatever it is we wish to achieve, we can overcome all obstacles as long as the government doesn't get in our way. In fact, the only reason we can't do that, is because you're relying on government, you should really work with private money and then you can achieve the goals you need without having to rely on the magic of the universes will or whatever. It is in your grasp, just believe. And if not, go have a huffy puff in a corner while the rest of us might capitalists go form our own society to build the future of science without you whiny ninnies sucking on the government teat.

Facts schmacts.
posted by symbioid at 9:28 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Senator Rob Portman’s Compromise: Obama Can Keep His Daughters, I’ll Take Everything Else

[T]he compromise here is that the government gets funded at levels of the Republicans' choosing, there are cuts to Medicare and Social Security, and instead of higher revenue, there's "tax reform." And we go through another debt-ceiling crisis within the next year. Politico's version adds the detail that Portman would insist that sequestration stay in place, mercifully absent from the Journal account.

The Journal describes Portman's proposal as a plan to "break the stalemate."

I say this literally and without exaggeration: If I had to choose between Portman's plan and the tea-party plan reported in The Onion — "a clean budget resolution bill in exchange for the president’s firstborn daughter, Malia Obama" — I would pick the Onion plan.

posted by zombieflanders at 9:41 AM on October 7, 2013

I say this literally and without exaggeration: If I had to choose between Portman's plan and the tea-party plan reported in The Onion — "a clean budget resolution bill in exchange for the president’s firstborn daughter, Malia Obama" — I would pick the Onion plan.

Of course, that would lead to:

BREAKING: Obama sells daughter into servitude. Further proof that he is a secret Muslim!
posted by Lemurrhea at 9:46 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

In fact, the Speaker doesn't technically have to be a Representative, but no one's ever pushed this.

Someone should tell Ted Cruz this. He should totally convince his Tea Party Allies in the house to try to vote him in as Speaker. I endorse this plan of action.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:47 AM on October 7, 2013 [4 favorites]

Ya know - that, upon thinking about it, reminds me of the tale of Sodom and Gomorrah. The idea that the people wanted to "know" the angelic visitors who were visiting Lot, and instead Lot turned over his daughters instead.

(It's also, if you think about it, the same sort of thing that happened with Osama, when the Taleban said they were not to turn over guests, as bin-Laden was a guest in their country).
posted by symbioid at 9:47 AM on October 7, 2013

Denny Hastert:

“The Hastert Rule never really existed. It’s a non-entity as far as I’m concerned.”

“The real Hastert Rule is 218,” he said, referring to the number of votes needed to pass legislation. “If we had to work with Democrats, we did ...”

posted by Golden Eternity at 10:00 AM on October 7, 2013

That's revisionist history from Hastert. Denny Hastert most definitely used the Hastert Rule.
posted by Flunkie at 10:13 AM on October 7, 2013

Well, he just wants it to be the Boehner Rule now...
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:17 AM on October 7, 2013

The credit ratings agencies are filled with your cross-eyed, booger-eating types and nobody on Wall Street really pays them any heed.

The American Association of Esotropic Mucophages would like to have a word with you.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:30 AM on October 7, 2013 [4 favorites]

Tom Coburn:

"I would dispel the rumor that is going around that you hear on every newscast that if we don't raise the debt ceiling, we will default on our debt," Coburn told CBS's "This Morning." "We won't."

"We'll continue to pay our interest," Coburn continued. "We'll continue to redeem bonds, and we'll issue new bonds to replace those. So it's not entirely accurate."

Pentagon orders 'most' of 400,000 furloughed employees back to work
posted by Golden Eternity at 10:45 AM on October 7, 2013

"Whatever, we are humans and supreme will of our capitalist might can dictate whatever it is we wish to achieve, we can overcome all obstacles as long as the government doesn't get in our way."

So, this weekend, I was hanging out with a friend's roommate, and she works for counter-intelligence in the FBI. She's technically furloughed, but has to keep coming in to do her work… except that her work is almost all about running networks, developing sources and coordinating engagements. Which means paying sources, providing for travel, and setting up meetings, none of which she can do without having spending approved. She's working on three major cases right now, and she says that all three of them could be fucked because she's not allowed to actually do her job because Congress refuses to actually pay for it. She deals with terrorism, drug cartels and international criminal syndicates and she says that every day that we're stalled, the country is less safe.
posted by klangklangston at 10:52 AM on October 7, 2013 [3 favorites]

3:1 If the big B goes down Paul Ryan makes a credible play for the Speakerhip. Although at this point I gotta admit I think Boehner narrowly holds on in the face of a challenge.
posted by edgeways at 10:53 AM on October 7, 2013

3:1 If the big B goes down Paul Ryan makes a credible play for the Speakerhip. Although at this point I gotta admit I think Boehner narrowly holds on in the face of a challenge.

I think Eric Cantor & Mr. Ryan would have words.
posted by Going To Maine at 10:56 AM on October 7, 2013

Undoubtedly, but I also suspect there are a LOT of words already happening behind the scenes. Boehner's back much be itching something fierce right now with all the potential daggers from friend and foe alike.
posted by edgeways at 10:58 AM on October 7, 2013

All the talk about Boehner losing the Speakership - is the idea that he will be removed as active Speaker and a Speaker pro tempore will be elected to finish out the term, or that he'll be removed at the start of the next Congress? Because the former is a big ol' grey area in House procedure.
posted by jason_steakums at 10:58 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

If Boehner is removed, it's conceivable that he would resign. Not likely, since he didn't resign the last time he was kicked out of power, but possible.
posted by Going To Maine at 11:02 AM on October 7, 2013

She deals with terrorism, drug cartels and international criminal syndicates and she says that every day that we're stalled, the country is less safe.

Y'know, Klang, I know you're posting in good faith and I'm sure you believe your friend's roommate and all, but I sure am tired of the "be afraid" drumbeat that has been blasting out of every media outlet since September 11, 2001.

I remember when we were genuinely threatened by a large nation with many, many large nuclear weapons pointed at us and we were not told to be afraid as much as we are now. I'm sorry, I'm not worried about a couple of guys half a world away with a Toyota pick-up and some AK-47s who managed to talk a lunatic into setting his shoes on fire.

Let's be honest, even with all the extra paranoia and security state apparatus in place, if a terrorist wanted to fuck some shit up in the states, they could. So where are they? All caught in the nick of time by our G-Men?

Personally, if somebody is telling me to be afraid of some nebulously defined foreign "bad guys" (and let's face it, they almost always use the phrase "bad guys" like this is a goddamn children's cartoon), I automatically assume that person has something to gain from me being afraid and am not inclined to listen a damn word coming out of their mouth. I know I'm a naif, but I really do believe that old Ben Franklin quote about those who would trade...

Like I said, nothing personal, I'm sure you're posting in good faith. Sorry for the derail.
posted by entropicamericana at 11:05 AM on October 7, 2013 [14 favorites]

Tom Coburn's proposal for actually acquiring the money to make those payments is non-existent, of course.
posted by feloniousmonk at 11:05 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

I am trying to imagine how Rand Paul, Coburn and all the other debt ceiling deniers will Ross respond when we fail to raise the debt ceiling and, as everyone has predicted, there is economic catastrophe. Will we get a Perry-esque "oops" from them or insistence that if we'd only all reacted the correct way that the catastrophe wouldn't have happened? Surely they would respond like a doomsday cult when their predicted end of the world date didn't pan out - justifying why they were really right all along in the face of insurmountable evidence that they couldn't have been more wrong.

They and their supporters are deep, deep down the rabbit hole, but they look up and see that little glimmer of sunlight from the surface world and insist that that glimmer is, in fact, Alice's Wonderland.
posted by Joey Michaels at 11:09 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Pentagon orders 'most' of 400,000 furloughed employees back to work

It's still unclear how this is going to affect contractors and other non-government employees like myself. We're still under a stop work order (now about 2,000 employees at my company) and we've been told we'll be furloughed at the end of the week if the company doesn't start getting paid by the government again.
posted by backseatpilot at 11:11 AM on October 7, 2013

You know, a household budget is a very different beast than a federal budget. DUH!

rant done.
posted by annsunny at 11:17 AM on October 7, 2013

Not least because if you could borrow unlimited amounts of money at 0% interest and print money to pay it back, you'd be a fool for not borrowing as much as you could.
posted by empath at 11:22 AM on October 7, 2013 [5 favorites]

"I remember when we were genuinely threatened by a large nation with many, many large nuclear weapons pointed at us and we were not told to be afraid as much as we are now. I'm sorry, I'm not worried about a couple of guys half a world away with a Toyota pick-up and some AK-47s who managed to talk a lunatic into setting his shoes on fire.

Let's be honest, even with all the extra paranoia and security state apparatus in place, if a terrorist wanted to fuck some shit up in the states, they could. So where are they? All caught in the nick of time by our G-Men?

Personally, if somebody is telling me to be afraid of some nebulously defined foreign "bad guys" (and let's face it, they almost always use the phrase "bad guys" like this is a goddamn children's cartoon), I automatically assume that person has something to gain from me being afraid and am not inclined to listen a damn word coming out of their mouth. I know I'm a naif, but I really do believe that old Ben Franklin quote about those who would trade..."

Sorry, I realize that you're probably just getting some grousing off your chest, but this reads as just as dumb as the With-Us-Or-Against-Us War on Terra stuff.

I mean, you know that drug cartels actually exist and do, in fact, murder people, right? And that there's still significant organized crime in America too? And while terrorists could, indeed, fuck us up, that doesn't mean that people aren't actively trying to prevent that and that occasionally they're successful?

Your comment would make more sense if I said anything like "bad guys," and didn't instead talk about concrete ways that the shutdown is impacting the FBI's ability to do it's job. Which is less about guys in a pickup with an AK than it is, like, human trafficking and interstate gangs, which does actually effect American safety.
posted by klangklangston at 11:45 AM on October 7, 2013 [5 favorites]

Surely they would respond like a doomsday cult when their predicted end of the world date didn't pan out - justifying why they were really right all along in the face of insurmountable evidence that they couldn't have been more wrong.

I don't think there have been many doomsday cults with the power of self-fulfilling prophecy at their disposal. Current opportunistic disbelief aside, these are the same people who have been predicting economic collapse and financial calamity for years, and I'm sure they'd waste no time after deliberately nuking the nation's economy to issue a great big "we told you so" press release.
posted by RonButNotStupid at 11:45 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

This is all about breaking boehner. He is going to lose his speakership over this.

That's something I'm wondering about. What are the respective likelihoods of either a Dem/Moderate Republican coalition, or a Tea Party/Moderate Republican coalition to have him removed? What are the likely deciding factors (both in terms of the actual events that tip the scales to an official call for his removal, and the political risks moderate Republicans would be taking by siding with the Tea Party/Democrats) in each scenario?

And, more importantly, if it's likely that's he's through either way, why the fuck is Boehner punishing the whole country? Does he really believe he's going to win the gamble he's making? Wouldn't backing down and accepting the consequences at least make future employment prospects better?
posted by Rykey at 11:52 AM on October 7, 2013

I thought that the main thing that kept Boehner in his job was that no one else really wanted it. Other people want the power, but not the profile.
posted by klangklangston at 11:54 AM on October 7, 2013

Y'know, Klang, I know you're posting in good faith and I'm sure you believe your friend's roommate and all, but I sure am tired of the "be afraid" drumbeat that has been blasting out of every media outlet since September 11, 2001.

I know. Its like for some unknown reason, since September 11, 2001, all these news outlets went crazy and claimed it was possible that terrorists could make a mass-casualty attack on the U.S.? No idea why this all started then.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:56 AM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Tom Coburn's proposal for actually acquiring the money to make those payments is non-existent, of course.

Says who? Tom Coburn has a plan - acquire the money from the disability fund, because it's just waste and fraud anyway according to him:

"Much of the "60 Minutes" piece was devoted to exposing garden variety scams supposedly perpetrated by shyster disability lawyers, which apparently is Coburn's hobbyhorse. But that's not the true story of Social Security disability. This is a program that serves needy, aging and injured members of the workforce, paying a princely average of $1,130 a month.

The tragedy is that the disability program is underfunded, facing the exhaustion of its resources as soon as 2016. In the past, Congress has routinely remedied this funding crisis by transferring funds from Social Security's old-age program. But it has never acted to properly support the disability fund."

'60 Minutes'' shameful attack on the disabled

"Is it possible for a major news organization to produce a story about the Social Security disability program without interviewing a single disabled person or disability advocate?

That's the experiment "60 Minutes" conducted Sunday. The result was predictably ghastly.

The news program's theme was that disability recipients are ripping off the taxpayer. Anchor Steve Kroft called the program "a secret welfare system... ravaged by waste and fraud." His chief source was Sen. Tom Coburn, an Oklahoma Republican with a documented hostility to Social Security. Coburn has a report on the disability program's purported flaws due out Monday. Good of "60 Minutes" to give him some free publicity.

Together Kroft and Coburn displayed a rank ignorance about the disability program: how it works, who the beneficiaries are, why it has grown. This is especially shocking because after a similarly overwrought and inaccurate "investigation" of disability aired on National Public Radio in March, numerous experts came forth to set the record straight. They included eight former Social Security commissioners, experienced analysts of the program, even the Social Security Administration's chief actuary, Steve Goss.

"60 Minutes" apparently talked to none of them."

Just you wait - Coburn will come up with the money in no time at all - raid the disability fund, raid the "sacred cow Social Security" (see second link), defund food stamps and sell the poor for firewood - problem solved!
posted by VikingSword at 12:02 PM on October 7, 2013 [20 favorites]

If they raid Social Security Disability Insurance, people will be dying in the streets. This is not hyperbole.
posted by The White Hat at 12:09 PM on October 7, 2013 [21 favorites]

Meanwhile, the consequences continue to rack up for science. (Yes I know this is minor compared to kids being kicked out of clinical trials, but still. Some of us poured a lot of effort into this stuff.)

Kepler science meeting needs a new venue to proceed.

VLBA shutdown could waste a year's worth of work.
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:18 PM on October 7, 2013

U.S. shutdown is really about Tea Party survival: Will Obamacare become such a popular government program that it reinforces the often-tenuous link between the U.S. people and their government?
posted by homunculus at 12:20 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Here's where we stand on support for that clean Continuing Resolution: 198 of 200 House Democrats support the Senate's Clean CR. I am curious about those remaining two (John Barrow D-GA and Mike McIntyre, D-NC). The CR also has support from 21 Republicans (and 3 more are leaning yes).
posted by troika at 12:23 PM on October 7, 2013

That's something I'm wondering about. What are the respective likelihoods of either a Dem/Moderate Republican coalition, or a Tea Party/Moderate Republican coalition to have him removed?

I'd guess we'd end up with a tea-party speaker before we got a moderate one.
posted by empath at 12:24 PM on October 7, 2013

There is a larger issues with that particular conference RedOrGreen :
US scientists boycott Nasa conference over China ban

And you're link addresses this point : "Although the Kepler conference organizers fought this restriction, we were informed a few days ago that young, talented astrophysicists from foreign countries would be barred from attending the meeting. As this meeting is arguably one of the most important opportunities to share and discuss new findings about these newly-discovered alien worlds, this restriction both damages scientific discourse within the community as a whole and directly damages the careers of those who are banned from participating. As a result, astronomers who originally planned to attend the conference are now planning to boycott in protest of these xenophobic policies."
posted by jeffburdges at 12:25 PM on October 7, 2013 [5 favorites]

Tom Coburn is an existential threat to humanity, between this bullshit and climate change, the man needs to be removed from his seat at the table of power.
posted by symbioid at 12:25 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

via Twitter: From what I've witnessed in my house today, "furloughed" means binge watching Breaking Bad.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 12:26 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Going To Maine: "3:1 If the big B goes down Paul Ryan makes a credible play for the Speakerhip. Although at this point I gotta admit I think Boehner narrowly holds on in the face of a challenge.

I think Eric Cantor & Mr. Ryan would have words."

Fightin' words, please!
posted by symbioid at 12:28 PM on October 7, 2013

holy shit, jeffburdges!

If your national security is so weak that setting foot in ANY NASA building is a threat to it, you may have to rethink how you're doing "national security".

Goddamn xenophobic grandstanding idiots.
posted by symbioid at 12:34 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

via Twitter: From what I've witnessed in my house today, "furloughed" means binge watching Breaking Bad.

My federal-worker friends are going crazy having nothing to do and are trying to limit themselves to 2-3 hours per day of Netflix.
posted by aka burlap at 12:37 PM on October 7, 2013

Prediction: John Bohner will not be speaker of the House by Halloween. He's bungled this badly and seems to have lost the confidence of his members.
posted by humanfont at 12:46 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

jeffburdges: There is a larger issue with that particular conference[...]

Yep, agreed. But the whole set of China restrictions come from a handful (one?) of Republican congresscritters, too.

(Paying for a trip to the International Astronomers Union meeting in Beijing with a NASA grant? That was fun.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 12:56 PM on October 7, 2013

Speaking of the conference, anybody else find it a little funny that it's a xenophobic policy and is limiting a scientific conference regarding... alien worlds?
posted by symbioid at 1:03 PM on October 7, 2013 [6 favorites]

Paul Ryan makes a credible play for the Speakership

He would be easier to negotiate with, certainly. Presumably, the tea party people would listen to him.
posted by empath at 1:06 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Prediction: John Boehner will be Speaker of the House for Halloween. His costume will include a small megaphone and he will be dressed as a house
posted by theodolite at 1:14 PM on October 7, 2013 [11 favorites]

Ha ha, I have $100 to last me until my SSDI check will come/ will not come next week

Ha

Ha
posted by angrycat at 1:20 PM on October 7, 2013 [3 favorites]

I think this all heats up sooner than the 16th. On or just before the 11th, everyone, even the excepted worker, gets their half-normal pay and this becomes tangible, promised back-pay or not.
posted by ctmf at 1:28 PM on October 7, 2013

Paul Ryan makes a credible play for the Speakership

He would be easier to negotiate with, certainly. Presumably, the tea party people would listen to him

Ryan seems to consistently be a small budget hard liner. Why would he be easier to negotiate with than Boehner?
posted by Going To Maine at 1:28 PM on October 7, 2013

Why would [Ryan] be easier to negotiate with than Boehner?

None of this, "Gosh, I'd love to, but these wackadoos I gotta deal with in my caucus, y'know..." stuff. At least with Ryan, you'd be dealing with someone who's actually in charge.
posted by Etrigan at 1:37 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

That's assuming that Boehner's just playing one Republican caucus off another to save his own job. What if he's been doing this at Ryan's behest all along?
posted by RonButNotStupid at 1:41 PM on October 7, 2013

Bill Moyers Essay: On the Sabotage of Democracy
posted by AElfwine Evenstar at 1:51 PM on October 7, 2013 [3 favorites]

Why The US Government Is Shut Down: 5 Theories From Abroad
posted by cybercoitus interruptus at 1:53 PM on October 7, 2013

I am trying to imagine how Rand Paul, Coburn and all the other debt ceiling deniers will respond when we fail to raise the debt ceiling and, as everyone has predicted, there is economic catastrophe.

Based on the financial markets, Wall Street doesn't seem to be predicting a catastrophe. Since all indications are that neither side intends to 'cave,' I wonder why this is. I guess Ironmouth makes a good point that it would be a mistake for Obama to ignore the debt limit and continue to issuing debt to stop the suffering caused by the shutdown and a default and keep the economy going, as this would open him up to the "dictator" label and impeachment. So perhaps it is better for him to let the GOP default and find their own ways to mitigate it. If it is the GOP doing all of the maneuvering around a government shutdown and default, perhaps they will be the ones to end up breaking the law, and the Democrats could pursue legal action?

Maddow - 'We are the ones who did shut the government down'

Shortly after President Obama started his second term, a loose-knit coalition of conservative activists led by former Attorney General Edwin Meese III gathered in the capital to plot strategy. Their push to repeal Mr. Obama's health care law was going nowhere, and they desperately needed a new plan.

Out of that session, held one morning in a location the members insist on keeping secret, came a little-noticed "blueprint to defunding Obamacare," signed by Mr. Meese and leaders of more than three dozen conservative groups.

It articulated a take-no-prisoners legislative strategy that had long percolated in conservative circles: that Republicans could derail the health care overhaul if conservative lawmakers were willing to push fellow Republicans -- including their cautious leaders -- into cutting off financing for the entire federal government.

The GOP must believe that they can go down the path of a "pseudo-"default and defund only the parts of government they don't like, ACA in particular, while continuing to avert economic or political catastrophe? Any economic problems that do occur would serve as a mark on Obama's legacy.

Ryan seems to consistently be a small budget hard liner. Why would he be easier to negotiate with than Boehner?

One thing that seems to be a real problem with Boehner as speaker is neither side trusts him to stick to any agreement he makes and are thus not inclined to make concessions and be made a fool in the end. If Ryan is better able to keep his agreements, maybe both sides will trust him enough to compromise on something.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:55 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

@VikingSword: Not trying to derail, but NPR's This American Life (along with their offshoot program, Planet Money) dedicated an entire episode to Social Security Disability fraud. Coburn might be way off base with his attacks on the entire program, but fraud always gets me fired up. Any fraudsters on the rolls are siphoning money away from people that legitimately depend on those checks for their survival, which should be appalling for everyone.

Figure 6 in the Chief Actuary's testimony (linked to in that LA Times article) is particularly striking: disability prevalence has been rising since 1985, on an age-sex adjusted basis. If Coburn wants to go after fraudulent claims between now and his exit from Congress in 2016, that's fine by me. Using fraud as an excuse to defund the entire program is not. There's some great discussion airing right now on C-SPAN. Coburn is up on his soapbox, but the other members of the committee are much more reasonable.
posted by notpace at 1:56 PM on October 7, 2013

Rep. Pete Sessions: We aren't the french, we don't surrender.
-
ABC: The Republicans in Congress have lost ground against Barack Obama in blame over the government shutdown, with Americans expressing increasing criticism of both parties in Washington, while the president’s avoided that rise in public ire.

Seventy percent in a new ABC News/Washington Post poll disapprove of how the Republicans in Congress are handling the budget negotiations, up 7 percentage points from a week ago. Far fewer, 51 percent, disapprove of Obama’s approach, essentially unchanged in the past week.
-
If we hit the debt ceiling, can Obama choose which bills to pay?
posted by Drinky Die at 2:07 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Golden Eternity: "If it is the GOP doing all of the maneuvering around a government shutdown and default, perhaps they will be the ones to end up breaking the law, and the Democrats could pursue legal action?"

I don't see how this could happen. The GOP maneuvering involves passing (or refusing to pass) legislation. It's not illegal for them to allow the government to shut down due to a budget impasse, and it's not illegal for them to fail to pass legislation raising the debt ceiling. Anything else they could do, such as these "fund this, fund that, but don't fund that" piecemeal restoration of things they like, would have to pass through the Senate and be signed into law by Obama, be rejected by the Senate, or be vetoed by the President. In other words, any act they take that results in any change to the laws will require the President's signature on it, therefore, I don't see how Congress could face "legal action" other than something they pass being declared unconstitutional, which doesn't have any consequences for them other than wasting time.

Really, though, I don't think the GOP has any sense of urgency on this, and it's because, though the public seems to give the GOP a bit more of the blame, they also think Obama should be willing to give up parts of Obamacare to make a deal:

But the new polls offered little in the way of consensus as to how lawmakers or the administration should proceed. The Pew poll found that a slight plurality – 44 percent – of respondents want Republicans to agree to a deal without any changes to the Affordable Care Act. Democrats in Washington have been pummeling the GOP for days, demanding that they pass a simple extension of government spending and reopen the government. Before the shutdown, Republicans had appended changes to “Obamacare” to these simple stopgap spending bills.

Leading lawmakers outside of Capitol Hill are voicing their unhappiness over a government shutdown that likely won't end with big bipartisan solutions. Former Sen. Olympia Snowe discusses.

But 42 percent of Americans said in the Pew poll that Obama should agree to a deal to reopen the government that includes changes to his signature health care reform law – as Republicans have been demanding for weeks now.

I heard those poll results being discussed on All Things Considered a little earlier (audio available here in a couple of hours) and I damn near ripped off my car's steering wheel. We're basically getting the government we deserve at this point of 42% of people think that the proper response to a group of thugs that holds the global economy hostage is to give in to their demands by auctioning off pieces of your administration's signature accomplishment.

With poll results like this, I think the mainstream GOP, not just the Tea Party dead-enders, will be happy to let this go on for a few more weeks at least, and won't think twice about doubling down with the debt ceiling. Why would they?
posted by tonycpsu at 2:08 PM on October 7, 2013 [3 favorites]

Congress' approval rating: 11%
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 2:08 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

The news program's theme was that disability recipients are ripping off the taxpayer.

It's infuriating that programs are targeted for a small amount of scammers involved (why not go after the scammers rather than shutting down the program?) but God forbid we change the tax laws to make the very wealthy and particularly corporations pay their fair share to help maintain the countries they do business in. Billions of dollars are missing from the coffers that should be there, and cutting disability programs isn't going to bring it back.
posted by juiceCake at 2:16 PM on October 7, 2013 [13 favorites]

TNR - Cokie Roberts is Hurting America. She said what on Sunday?

I might say this whole business of, you know, we won't negotiate with a gun to your head, actually I would prefer to negotiate with a gun to my head rather than have somebody shoot me.
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:20 PM on October 7, 2013

On an interview on WNYC this morning, Joe Lhota was doing his best impression of a so-called reasonable Republican, by saying he is of course completely against the shutdown but that, gosh, why can't the Obama administration come to the table and talk?

Fuck that guy.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 2:20 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

@VikingSword: Not trying to derail, but NPR's This American Life (along with their offshoot program, Planet Money) dedicated an entire episode to Social Security Disability fraud. Coburn might be way off base with his attacks on the entire program, but fraud always gets me fired up. Any fraudsters on the rolls are siphoning money away from people that legitimately depend on those checks for their survival, which should be appalling for everyone.

Hi. I did not hear those shows. But I can tell you that:
1) I'm paralyzed from the waist down
2) I have a part-time job teaching and
3) SSA scrutinizes every dollar I earn like a motherfucker.

Also, you might not know that the idea that people receiving SSDI are fraudsters is a common trope. Also, you might consider that your being appalled fits snugly into a narrative (SSDI fraudsters) that is malignant to people who receive it. Much like the idea of 'welfare queens' the fraud thing serves to delegitimize the needs of those who receives SSDI.

So, do consider that your supporting this narrative is actively harmful, as in, it has the potential to hurt real people.
posted by angrycat at 2:21 PM on October 7, 2013 [40 favorites]

Ha ha, I have $100 to last me until my SSDI check will come/ will not come next week
Ha
Ha

My SSDI Direct Deposit hit my checking account right on time on the 3rd. For next month, I'm making other plans (some cash on hand and a nice landlord who'll give me leeway on ONE month's rent, but still, it would make Christmas scarier than Halloween)
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:24 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Bill Moyers Essay: On the Sabotage of Democracy

I'm surprised the Democrats aren't use the "patriotism" angle, and not in the specious manner it's used by the Tea Party. There are absolutely clear examples of "unAmerican" behaviour in spades going on here. These people want to fuck everyone over and are obvious about it.
posted by juiceCake at 2:27 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

The Debt-Ceiling Crisis to End All Debt-Ceiling Crises

Today, White House press secretary Jay Carney said something encouraging: that Barack Obama is never again going to negotiate over the debt ceiling. "Whether it's today, or a number of weeks from now, or a number of months from now, or a number of years from now, it will always be Congress's responsibility to raise our debt ceiling so that the United States can pay the bills that Congress has incurred," Carney said. "It will always be, as long as he's president, President Obama's position that that responsibility is not negotiable. That there's not a game of trading for political priorities or agenda items that Republicans have not been able to achieve through legislation or the ballot box."

That's a good start, but how about this. As part of the resolution to the crisis, Obama should demand that whatever agreement they come to include eliminating the debt ceiling. Not raise it, blast it to oblivion. The fact that we have a debt ceiling at all is ridiculous. It essentially requires Congress to approve every budget twice, once to spend the money, and once to pay the bills for the money they just spent. There's only one other democracy in the world (Denmark) that has such a thing, and they set theirs high enough that it never matters. In the days before the Republican Party descended into madness, the debt ceiling was nothing more than an occasion for some harmless grandstanding by the opposition party, but now it has become a weapon of economic destruction that needs to be disarmed. So get rid of it. If Republicans don't want the country to take on debt, they can try to put together a balanced budget and see if it can pass. But this insanity has to stop, and the way to do it is to take away the minority party's ability to initiate what Bloomberg News calls "an economic calamity like none the world has ever seen."

That's what Obama ought to demand.

posted by zombieflanders at 2:33 PM on October 7, 2013 [13 favorites]

Conservatives Wary of Deal

“They may try to throw the kitchen sink at the debt limit, but I don’t think our conference will be amenable for settling for a collection of things after we’ve fought so hard,” says Representative Scott Garrett (R., N.J.). “If it doesn’t have a full delay or defund of Obamacare, I know I and many others will not be able to support whatever the leadership proposes. If it’s just a repeal of the medical-device tax, or chained CPI, that won’t be enough.”

Representative Paul Broun (R., Ga.) agrees, and says Boehner risks an internal rebellion if he decides to broker a compromise. “America is going to be destroyed by Obamacare, so whatever deal is put together must at least reschedule the implementation of Obamacare,” he says. “This law is going to destroy America and everything in America, and we need to stop it.”
posted by Drinky Die at 2:41 PM on October 7, 2013

The "great" thing about attacking the social safety net is that the relentless focus on administrative waste means the programs don't get a lot of resources to ferret out fraud, which means anecdotes of fraud can be blown out of proportion, and there's very little defenders of the programs can do to show that these are isolated incidents. So Tom Coburn can point out that the number of claims has gone up whatever percent over the past however many years, and we have no data to show whether the increase in claims is legitimate or not.

The more I see this story repeated, the more I start to think the right answer is some kind of guaranteed minimum income for everyone. It's a heavy political lift, but it gets rid of the questions over eligibility.
posted by tonycpsu at 2:41 PM on October 7, 2013 [7 favorites]

The 13 Reasons Washington if Failing - most of them boil down to "the Tea Party is awful" but it's worth reading even if for some reason you don't consider that the case.
posted by Artw at 2:47 PM on October 7, 2013

9-Year-Old Sneaks Onto Flight; TSA Blames The Government Shutdown, Then Says It Did It's Job Just Fine
posted by jeffburdges at 2:49 PM on October 7, 2013 [3 favorites]

As part of the resolution to the crisis, Obama should demand that whatever agreement they come to include eliminating the debt ceiling. Not raise it, blast it to oblivion. The fact that we have a debt ceiling at all is ridiculous.

I agree that it's a dumb rule, but there's no reason for Obama to try to eliminate the debt ceiling. That would give the other side ammunition to say that he's asking for something unreasonable that no president has asked for since the debt ceiling was created. The current stance of taking the debt ceiling completely off of the table as a negotiation bargaining chip is a better overall strategy than trying to turn it into a negotiation over whether the debt ceiling is eliminated or not.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:51 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

They'll be back on it the microsecond they can trying to get whatever they can though - by now its apparent they have nothing to offer they won't immediately grab back, do really they have nothing to offer.
posted by Artw at 2:55 PM on October 7, 2013

Children are clearly a security risk and should be banned from flight.

unless they can fit into a 3 oz container
posted by The Whelk at 3:01 PM on October 7, 2013 [3 favorites]

9-Year-Old Sneaks Onto Flight; TSA Blames The Government Shutdown, Then Says It Did It's Job Just Fine

He was lucky they didn't shoot him.
posted by sour cream at 3:02 PM on October 7, 2013 [4 favorites]

Representative Paul Broun (R., Ga.) agrees, and says Boehner risks an internal rebellion if he decides to broker a compromise. “America is going to be destroyed by Obamacare, so whatever deal is put together must at least reschedule the implementation of Obamacare,” he says. “This law is going to destroy America and everything in America, and we need to stop it.”

Is Rep. Broun scripted by the kid who writes Axe Cop?
posted by jason_steakums at 3:02 PM on October 7, 2013 [10 favorites]

disability prevalence has been rising since 1985, on an age-sex adjusted basis.

Disability claims have been rising since 1985. One of the reasons for that is that around that time, large changes were made to allow for more types of disabilities to be covered under Social Security. That's the cost of being in a society -- every now and then, we have to ask ourselves, "Hey, are we helping out everyone who needs it?" Sometimes the answer is "No," and we find ourselves with expanding definitions of "disability."

It's not that more lazy bastards are sucking off the SSDI teat -- it's that we came to a realization as a society that more people need a little bit more help. Is there fraud in those numbers? Of course there is. But there is tremendously more help being given to people who need it.
posted by Etrigan at 3:05 PM on October 7, 2013 [21 favorites]

...any one of the links in this FPP...

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.
posted by daq at 3:07 PM on October 7, 2013

troika: "Here's something really fucking stupid: Truck drivers are going to clog the Beltway this Friday demanding that members of Congress - Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, specifically - be arrested for treason."

Holy crap. Scary.

"Conlon cited the idea of a citizens grand jury – meaning a pool of jurors convened without court approval – as the mechanism for indicting the officials.
"We want these people arrested, and we're coming in with the grand jury to do it," he said. "We are going to ask the law enforcement to uphold their constitutional oath and make these arrests. If they refuse to do it, by the power of the people of the United States and the people's grand jury, they don't want to do it, we will. ... We the people will find a way.""
posted by Hairy Lobster at 3:07 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Sounds like "lynch mob".

I suppose they know that.
posted by Artw at 3:08 PM on October 7, 2013 [10 favorites]

Trucker-specific grievances behind the protest include Environmental Protection Agency fuel efficiency standards and the high cost of diesel fuel.

What is this? I can't even compre-fucking-hend what cognitive dissonance goes on to reach this way of thinking.
posted by Talez at 3:08 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Where's that guy complaining about violent rhetoric? Or did he delete that opinion along with his tweet?
posted by Artw at 3:13 PM on October 7, 2013

As part of the resolution to the crisis, Obama should demand that whatever agreement they come to include eliminating the debt ceiling. Not raise it, blast it to oblivion. The fact that we have a debt ceiling at all is ridiculous.

Congress has to authorize the issuance of debt. Whether its through a ceiling or another matter is immaterial. The Constitution authorizes it and only it to issue debt. Whether it was a ceiling or whatever, this was going to happen. The idea tha Obama can somehow let congress abrogate this responsible is erroneous.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:18 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Sounds like "lynch mob".

I suppose they know that.

A bunch of modern-day wagons driven by people who are already using violent rhetoric from a political demographic inclined towards racism, circling a majority-minority city and running through at least one majority-minority county?

This is practically begging to not end well, and that's even without the fact that "leaving the left lane open" is barely safer than closing the lanes off entirely.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:25 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Truck drivers are going to clog the Beltway this Friday demanding that members of Congress - Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, specifically - be arrested for treason.

Area Truck Drivers Passionate Defenders Of What They Imagine The Constitution To Be.

Look out fellas, looks like they got themselves a convoy!
posted by entropicamericana at 3:34 PM on October 7, 2013 [16 favorites]

I wonder if the reporter didn't bother to ask about what they plan to do if they actually manage to arrest someone or if they just don't have a plan for that. I'm not really sure either option is necessarily better.

I wonder how many trucks will show up. 50? 100? I'm taking the under.
posted by feloniousmonk at 3:39 PM on October 7, 2013

Look out fellas, looks like they got themselves a convoy!

Republicans really have no fucking clue that they're not I'm a movie, do they?
posted by Artw at 3:40 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

I wonder if the reporter didn't bother to ask about what they plan to do if they actually manage to arrest someone or if they just don't have a plan for that.

"Look, sir: Would you ask a Shiba Inu what it would do with a Mazda Miata if it caught up to it? No. Just let us do what we're doing here."
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:43 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Well we got a big ol' convoy
Rollin' through the night
Yeah, we got a big ol' convoy
Ain't she a beautiful sight?
Come on and join our convoy
Ain't nothin' gonna get in our way
Yeah we gonna crash this convoy
Into the USA
Convoooooooooooooooooooooooooooy
Convoooooooooooooooooooooooooooy
posted by Flunkie at 3:53 PM on October 7, 2013 [5 favorites]

We need Ernest Borgnine in a tank.
posted by Artw at 3:55 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Flunkie, everytime I steal a big rig in GTA V I drive around playing the country station until that song comes on. Then I proceed to drive around like a maniac with the radio turned up shooting at random things. Hopefully this convoy won't be much like mine :)
posted by Arbac at 3:56 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

We need Ernest Borgnine in a tank.

You say that about everything.

And I agree with you!
posted by mazola at 3:57 PM on October 7, 2013 [5 favorites]

"Look, sir: Would you ask a Shiba Inu what it would do with a Mazda Miata if it caught up to it? No. Just let us do what we're doing here."

             wow

so constitution

            diesel posse

                        wow

   death panels
posted by zombieflanders at 3:58 PM on October 7, 2013 [16 favorites]

(why not go after the scammers rather than shutting down the program?) but God forbid we change the tax laws to make the very wealthy and particularly corporations pay their fair share to help maintain the countries they do business in.

That extra revenue might even, y'know, help fund better fraud investigation.

I wonder how many trucks will show up. 50? 100? I'm taking the under.

I agree. My purely anecdotal experience with threatened trucker strikes is that they are long on talk from their organizers, but very short on buy-in from their target audience (potential strikers). If it were possible for a group of people as critical to the economy as our freight haulers to wield that kind of power that easily, especially without the support of organized labor, we'd be in trouble.
posted by Rykey at 4:19 PM on October 7, 2013

Miller: The more you drive, the less intelligent you are.
posted by edgeways at 4:22 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

See, this is where I kind of laugh about the truckers. If they had actually kept a strong teamsters union, this kind of action would actually, you know, mean something. As it stands, it's going to be about as organized as a herd of cats.

I wonder if any teamster union reps haven't caught on and contacted them about, you know, signing up for the union.... because, you know, organizing labor or something....

/dr. evil pinkie
posted by daq at 4:27 PM on October 7, 2013 [6 favorites]

not I'm a movie

Darn. I was looking forward to "Artw: The Movie."
posted by homunculus at 4:31 PM on October 7, 2013

...“This law is going to destroy America and everything in America, and we need to stop it.”

Sparrows! Water fountains! Cheese danishes! Yes, everything!

Seriously, the Convoy business is the scariest thing I've heard in some days. All it would take would be for one peckerwood to get threatened and pull his gun, and once some biased account on the news caught fire it'd be Fort Sumter all over again.
posted by Countess Elena at 4:35 PM on October 7, 2013 [5 favorites]

“This law is going to destroy America and everything in America, and we need to stop it.”

Another in a long list of things these people are saying where I'm baffled they're not laughed out of office immediately. Amid all the sexual orientation, cultural, and racial intolerance, there is an amazing level of tolerance for absolute bullshit.
posted by juiceCake at 4:40 PM on October 7, 2013 [12 favorites]

Here's something really fucking stupid: Truck drivers are going to clog the Beltway this Friday demanding that members of Congress - Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, specifically - be arrested for treason.

Sounds Koch brothers funded to me. These "grass roots" initiatives are usually astroturf funded by big bucks. That's how we got the freaking tea party in the first place. Infuse with money until they take on a life of their own.

Apparently, there's some big-monied people who really want a replay of the civil war.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:41 PM on October 7, 2013 [6 favorites]

Bachman is beyond belief. Her newest - Obama changed Obamacare via tweets.

"So here's the point – we're being told right now to fund Obamacare, but the bill that we passed is not the one that we're funding," Bachmann told onlookers. "President Obama changed the bill just by tweeting it out, so he's asking us to change a bill that he's tweeted – that's against the law."

My head hurts.
posted by madamjujujive at 4:48 PM on October 7, 2013 [19 favorites]

Seriously, the Convoy business is the scariest thing I've heard in some days.

One thing that is a little worrying about this is that the involvement of the big trucks will cause the law enforcement response to escalate. If they decide to try parking on the White House lawn or whatever it could get out of hand fast and we might see the really heavy weapons come out. I remain skeptical that it'll amount to much more than a photo op, though.
posted by feloniousmonk at 4:51 PM on October 7, 2013

These truckers are also sending a group to...... Facebook headquarters? Huh?
posted by inigo2 at 4:52 PM on October 7, 2013

President Obama changed the bill just by tweeting it out...

Ah, the famous Bachmann Uncertainty About Everything Principle.
posted by Atom Eyes at 4:54 PM on October 7, 2013 [7 favorites]

I suspect (hope?) that the convoy/citizen grand jury/impeachment business will turn out like the attempt to do the exact same thing last month (DailyKos link): That is to say, a complete and total no-show.
posted by dhens at 5:00 PM on October 7, 2013

Seriously, the Convoy business is the scariest thing I've heard in some days. All it would take would be for one peckerwood to get threatened and pull his gun, and once some biased account on the news caught fire it'd be Fort Sumter all over again.

Nah. All kinds of law enforcement will be watching these guys. I don't even see how they'll get past the blocking of traffic with their trucks part.
posted by Rykey at 5:01 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Oath Keepers' "30,000 members" are Going “Operational” by Forming Special “Civilization Preservation” Teams - fun times.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:02 PM on October 7, 2013

"So here's the point – we're being told right now to fund Obamacare, but the bill that we passed is not the one that we're funding," Bachmann told onlookers. "President Obama changed the bill just by tweeting it out, so he's asking us to change a bill that he's tweeted – that's against the law."

On the bright side, the term "onlookers" makes it sound as if she's standing on a literal soap box on a street corner, wearing rags and a decrepit wizard's cap, pitifully braying this nonsense to stone-faced passersby.
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:05 PM on October 7, 2013 [5 favorites]

Ted Cruz's chief of staff just re-tweeted: The Oct 17th "debt ceiling" deadline is bogus. @USTreasury has plenty of cash. Folks know it. So expect to go through date w/ no resolution.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 5:08 PM on October 7, 2013

Do you think at some point the media will notice that both sides are exactly the same?
posted by madamjujujive at 5:09 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Harry Reid gave another great interview, reiterating that Dems are not going to give in.
posted by bearwife at 5:14 PM on October 7, 2013

Oath Keepers is instructing its 30,000 members nation-wide to form up special teams and sub-teams... modeled loosely on the Special Forces “A Team”

...or, more likely TV's "A Team".

The scary thing is how this crisis is bringing out the crazies; the ones who have been talking a good "Militia" game but never had the balls to follow up on any of their "revolution" threats. Still, how many new McVeighs is this going to inspire? I'm ~~fearing~~ dreading it could, cumulatively, be bigger than 9/11. And the assholes who are "motivating the base" are sadly never going to be called into account for their cheerleading for treason and terrorism.

Remember, the Original Tea Party were traitors until after they won and got their own country.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:20 PM on October 7, 2013 [4 favorites]

These truckers are also sending a group to...... Facebook headquarters? Huh?

The joke's on them. 101 and Willow is already a parking lot!
posted by Talez at 5:31 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Seriously, the Convoy business is the scariest thing I've heard in some days.

It looks like a Glenn Beck-promoted story. The rhetoric is insane and troubling, sure, but it sounds like every other Birther fantasy of marching on Washington and arresting the Usurper. I'll believe it when I see it.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:48 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

"As for your question, she's referring to the Obama administration's unconstitutional actions to bypass Congress and unilaterally change Obamacare," Kotman wrote in an email. "Most notably, the administration used a blog post to announce the one year delay of the employer mandate,"

Weren't the republicans pushing to delay the employer mandate in the first place? Isn't this basically saying "how dare Obama do one of the things we wanted"?
posted by TwoWordReview at 5:58 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Weren't the republicans pushing to delay the employer mandate in the first place? Isn't this basically saying "how dare Obama do one of the things we wanted"?

This assumes that any of their specific policy demands were made in good faith, rather than blindly throwing shit at a wall of credulously transcribing reporters and seeing what stuck long enough to win the news cycle on a note of 'Obamacare = bad'.
posted by T.D. Strange at 6:19 PM on October 7, 2013 [5 favorites]

Billionaire couple donates $10 million to Head Start programs closed by U.S. government shutdown

"We sincerely hope that our government gets back to work in short order, as private dollars cannot in the long term replace government commitments," the Arnolds said in the statement.

posted by tonycpsu at 6:33 PM on October 7, 2013 [31 favorites]

Here we go:

So, Imagine that the company you work for held a poll, and asked everyone if they thought it would be a good idea to put a soda machine in the break room. The poll came back, and the majority of your colleagues said “Yes”, indicating that they would like a soda machine. Some said no, but the majority said yes. So, a week later, there’s a soda machine.

Now imagine that Bill in accounting voted against the soda machine. He has a strong hatred for caffeinated soft drinks, thinks they are bad you you, whatever. He campaigns throughout the office to get the machine removed. Well, management decides “OK, we’ll ask again” and again, the majority of people say “Yes, lets keep the soda machine.”

The rest is here.
posted by Mister Bijou at 6:57 PM on October 7, 2013 [17 favorites]

We sincerely hope that our government gets back to work in short order, as private dollars cannot in the long term replace government commitments

And the evidence is right there for everyone to see, particularly when speaking about "private corporate" dollars. Lobbying to lower taxes and reduce regulation so they can keep as much of it as they can and yet somehow some people "think" that without government these captains of industry will open their coffers "Dowton Abbey" style.
posted by juiceCake at 7:12 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

VA to furlough 7,000 employees, close regional offices

Veterans regional offices will be closed and nobody will answer their phones beginning Tuesday morning as the government shutdown forces furloughs of 7,000 employees of the Veterans Benefits Administration.

“All public access to VBA regional offices and facilities will be suspended,” said Veterans Affairs Department spokeswoman Victoria Dillon.

Pencil in "A Bill to Restore Funding to the Veterans Benefits Administration Because News Headlines Like This Are Embarrassing Us" for tomorrow's House calendar.
posted by tonycpsu at 7:30 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Here we go:

Boehner and his associates storm into a bank and he fires a gun into the air as a warning. "Everybody on the ground!" he screams.

As his compatriots watch the customers Boehner storms up to the bank manager, puts a gun to his head, and yells, "I'm here to negotiate the terms of a loan! Let's sit down and make a deal!"
posted by Drinky Die at 7:42 PM on October 7, 2013 [6 favorites]

America, you sent these guys here. They represent plenty of you, none of us.
posted by exogenous at 7:50 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

"Weren't the republicans pushing to delay the employer mandate in the first place? Isn't this basically saying "how dare Obama do one of the things we wanted"?"

Well, yeah, but he did it while being black and a Democrat. One of those things, they coulda dealt with, but both?
posted by klangklangston at 7:54 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

China tells US to avoid debt crisis for sake of global economy

"A senior Chinese official has warned that the "clock is ticking" to avoid a US default that could hurt China's interests and the global economy.

China, the US's largest creditor, is "naturally concerned about developments in the US fiscal cliff", vice finance minister Zhu Guangyao said."
posted by VikingSword at 7:59 PM on October 7, 2013

entropicamericana: "Look out fellas, looks like they got themselves a convoy!"

Not to be all comic book guy but the truckers in Convoy had a valid and significant grievance. Unlike these yahoos.
posted by Mitheral at 8:02 PM on October 7, 2013 [3 favorites]

We sincerely hope that our government gets back to work in short order, as private dollars cannot in the long term replace government commitments.

And yet, privitizing most services is precisely how fiscal conservatives expect things to happen.
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:11 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

And yet, privitizing most services is precisely how fiscal conservatives expect things to happen.

So that those womenfolk should pay more because it's "not bias", they use it more and come on, if you pay for it, it will take care "of all of this stuff" and apparently you'll save money and get a better deal so it will be a fair system. After all, women have more parts!

Words fail.
posted by juiceCake at 8:22 PM on October 7, 2013

Yep, the menfolk are gonna take care of the womenfolk... unless it costs money...
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:29 PM on October 7, 2013

I don't even. Wow.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 8:30 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

@pourmecoffee on Twitter: Maybe if they changed the name from debt ceiling to liberty limit the House GOP would raise it by mistake.
posted by emjaybee at 8:30 PM on October 7, 2013 [14 favorites]

The Capital Beltway is 64 miles long. I estimate it would take several thousand trucks operating as described (circling the beltway at 55mph, 3 lanes deep). Further complicating the truckers plans are HOV and toll lanes that have been added to the inner and outer loops, these are not accessible to trucks and would allow many to get around the convoy. They also propose they will limit access by driving 55mph and not leaving enough space for drivers to merge. The beltway has numerous construction zones and choke points at any given time that are likely to disrupt this continuous flow model. Any centipede like convoy of trucks that impeded traffic along its route be disrupted along its route by raising the Wilson Bridge.
The second part of the plan is equally problematic; and will hopefully result only in arrest of the truckers and not their deaths.
posted by humanfont at 8:34 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

As someone who drives on the beltway sometimes, driving a consistent 55mph would be lovely. Too bad that's just not possible most of the time, convoy or no convoy.
posted by peeedro at 8:55 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Remember "let Obamacare work for a year and everybody will accept it"? It's now being countered with "let the Government live within its means for a year and everybody will accept it." The only positive aspect of that strategy is it will be such a massive disaster that it might just kill the Republican party. I just worry about the number of human beings it will kill first.
posted by oneswellfoop at 8:55 PM on October 7, 2013

Not to be all comic book guy but the truckers in Convoy had a valid and significant grievance.

Convoy had a premise?
posted by Miko at 8:55 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Don't fuck with Peckinpah.
posted by Artw at 9:03 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

I feel like if the truckers did pull off that thing, a good portion of the trucks you'd see would actually be working drivers pissed at these idiots holding up traffic while they're trying to do their jobs. But they'd be indistinguishable and counted to inflate the numbers anyways.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:05 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

Those truckers would've even have a chance to be arrested before they were savagely murdered by enraged beltway commuters
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:18 PM on October 7, 2013 [5 favorites]

Obama to Boehner: 'Hold a vote. Call a vote right now. Let's see what happens'
posted by jason_steakums at 9:21 PM on October 7, 2013 [6 favorites]

A statement on the Facebook page for the demonstrations said on Monday that Conlon was “advised” not to represent himself as a spokesperson for the entire event, which organizers called “the last peaceful defensive stand in a war that has been declared by Wall Street, Washington, and the Whitehouse [sic] upon the American people.”
posted by empath at 9:21 PM on October 7, 2013

While I'm linking to Raw STory stuff, Michelle Bachmann says The End Is Near.

Kind of hard to negotiate with someone who believes the world is about to end.
posted by empath at 9:22 PM on October 7, 2013 [5 favorites]

I wouldn't object to seeing "the faithful" like Bachman "raptured" off this planet. It would make things better for the rest of us.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:27 PM on October 7, 2013 [7 favorites]

Not to be all comic book guy but the truckers in Convoy had a valid and significant grievance.

But when you get to the part where the reporters interview all the (by now multitudinous) convoy drivers, they all have different reasons for their protests! None of which had anything to do with Rubber Duck's original run from the law. I don't think we can look at Convoy (song or movie versions) for useful commentary on domestic policy.

Foreign policy, though...
posted by asperity at 9:30 PM on October 7, 2013 [2 favorites]

Probably the most relevant Peckinpah moment is the beginning of The Wild Bunch, where ants are biting a scorpion to death, the scorpion is hanging on stinging the ants to death and then children set fire to the whole lot. But which one is congress?
posted by Artw at 9:43 PM on October 7, 2013 [9 favorites]

Here's something really fucking stupid: Truck drivers are going to clog the Beltway this Friday demanding that members of Congress - Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, specifically - be arrested for treason.

I don't understand why the Koch family is not now sitting in a holding cell awaiting trial, after yesterday's revelations in the NYT. They have been lending material aid and comfort to Republican terrorists who aim to destroy our lawful government, and they have planned these acts of treason for months. It's almost as if the bigger and more brazen the open display of criminal activity, the more likely they are to get away with it. And then they incite people to brag about committing seditious acts, like this coup attempt. Where are the authorities who will rein in these right-wing extremists?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:54 PM on October 7, 2013 [16 favorites]

It's not actually against the law to commit political hari-kiri.
posted by empath at 10:16 PM on October 7, 2013

Emboldened Republicans defy Washington's norms

"They are not just tea party members but a combination of newcomers and veterans who, by sheer force of their personalities, and emboldened by safe conservative districts, have chosen to defy Washington's traditional norms of conversation and compromise.

They could be called the Chick-fil-A Caucus, after the monthly hearings convened by some conservative leaders, shadow government-style, in ornate committee chambers where they proudly serve sandwiches from the company made politically famous by the owner's opposition to same-sex marriage.

Their fierce commitment and the intense support of their outspoken constituents to slash spending and halt President Obama's healthcare law almost guarantee there will be no speedy resolution to the standoff that has forced parts of the federal government to close."

"The hard line from the Republican flank can be traced, in part, to new members who have little regard for the top-down leadership that has characterized the House in the past.

About half of the 232 House Republicans were elected in the last two elections, many with little or no legislative experience. Before winning seats, these Republicans who became congressmen included farmers, a car dealer, a funeral home director and a champion lumberjack.

New district boundaries and the increased tendency of Americans to cluster in like-minded communities have created what some political scientists say is the most polarized Congress since the late 19th century."

"Late last year, Boehner sanctioned a purge, removing a handful of the most rambunctious lawmakers from committee assignments. But the attempt at discipline backfired, emboldening those who were shunned to take aim openly at the speaker's leadership team.

Amid this backdrop, the Chick-fil-A-fueled meetings gained new momentum. The monthly sessions began in March 2012 to give rank-and-file conservatives, particularly those in the new class from 2010, a regular platform for sharing their views, much as the party leadership does during its weekly news conferences."

"Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), a doctor, an owner of sub shops and an elected coroner before joining Congress, said he heard only positive comments during a tele-town hall last week as the shutdown began.

"Our constituents are saying, 'Hey, you guys hang in there,'" said Fleming, who won his seat in 2008. "I couldn't keep them on topic because for them, they go, 'Shutdown? That stuff is happening in Washington. That doesn't affect our everyday life.' They're going, 'Keep fighting against Obamacare.'""
posted by VikingSword at 10:29 PM on October 7, 2013 [1 favorite]

They have been lending material aid and comfort to Republican terrorists who aim to destroy our lawful government, and they have planned these acts of treason for months. It's almost as if the bigger and more brazen the open display of criminal activity, the more likely they are to get away with it.

Again, why are you looking backwards? We only look forwards here in 'Muriricastan.
posted by T.D. Strange at 11:03 PM on October 7, 2013

Holy crap, that Rawstory post on Bachmann is utterly bizarre:

Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) falsely claimed over the weekend that President Barack Obama was “paying to give arms to terrorists including Al-Qaeda,” which she warned was a signed that “we are in God’s End Times”..."Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann added. “When we see up is down and right is called wrong, when this is happening, we were told this; these days would be as the days of Noah.”

This is who Obama is supposed to "compromise" with.
posted by clockzero at 11:13 PM on October 7, 2013 [44 favorites]

I'm wondering if Boehner's claim that the votes aren't there for a clean CR might be the thing that starts the whole facade crumbling, because that's a big gap in the armor he's exposed. The logical followup is "Well then why would you hold up the vote? You don't want a clean CR." and there's just no answer to that that doesn't very publicly reveal how badly they're up shit creek without a paddle. It's one thing to have all these anonymous Representatives murmuring and reporting back from closed-door meetings about the lack of a plan, it's another thing entirely when the Speaker is forced to publicly admit it or try and fail at lying his way out of the question. I think this is another "Proceed, Governor." moment for Obama and he knows it with that "Call a vote, let's see what happens." quote today.

I'm really interested in what happens to the handful of GOP Reps that are publicly talking about voting for a clean CR. I don't think they'd make the jump to being Blue Dogs, but I think they'll find their own party no safe harbor once they commit to voting aye. If Boehner caves then he'll take the brunt of the attack from the right, but if he just straight-up fails by making the party so radioactive that the moderates have to distance themselves, they're going to get the full force of the Tea Party ire because at that point they don't want Boehner's head, he'd have already hurt himself worse than they could hurt him. Either way, once the moderates make a move the Tea Party, Priebus' RNC and the PACs will close in and the old tried-and-true switch to Independent might start looking like the best of a set of bad options.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:33 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Forcing a vote is a win for the Democrats if there are really enough votes for a clean CR. They weaken Boehner, hand the Tea Party a humiliating defeat, and deepen the cracks in the Republican party. Forcing a vote and then failing to get the votes for a clean CR is a big win for the Republicans. It moves the conversation from being about a handful of extremists holding the economy hostage to why President Obama won't negotiate with congress. It a wonderful tactic for the Democrats to ask why they can't get a straight vote but I can't see that they really want for a vote to happen without absolute certainty that they'd win.
posted by rdr at 1:35 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

There was a kind of remarkable interview on NPR earlier today with a 'moderate' republican and a tea party republican where they were going after each other more than either was going after Howard Dean, who was also on the show.
posted by empath at 2:01 AM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Sounds Koch brothers funded to me. These "grass roots" initiatives are usually astroturf funded by big bucks.

He may have Koch or similar backing, but the convoy protest is wholly owned and operated, so far as I can tell, by news talker Peter T. "Pete" Santilli, who seems to be a low-rent hybrid of Rush Limbaugh and Alex Jones. Warning: Do not click on any site affiliated in the least way with this guy, because it will have an embed of audio from his latest show AT MAXIMUM VOLUME.

Anyway, he already appears to be in a DISAVOW, DISAVOW, DISAVOW sort of tiff with his own event's main organizer, a Tea Party creature named Earl Conlon. Google all you want, just make sure you have popcorn.
posted by dhartung at 2:46 AM on October 8, 2013

"We are making progress. It's now more socially acceptable to be gay than to be a Congressmen." - Barney Frank
posted by jeffburdges at 3:05 AM on October 8, 2013 [20 favorites]

Paul Ryan makes a credible play for the Speakership

He would be easier to negotiate with, certainly. Presumably, the tea party people would listen to him

I live in his district. Actually, the shutdown steamrolled a division he was having with the Tea Party because although he's no social moderate (just too Wisconsin Nice to say bad words about the people he wants to defund), he does in fact support a reasonably moderate position on immigration. This, of course, makes him a RINO in Tea Party circles.

Now, if there's one thing Republicans are good at, it's toeing the party line when the chips are down (uh, BLOCK THAT METAPHOR). So they may choose to forgive and forget if they need to win the Speaker fight. But then again, the election is by his own colleagues, not the rank-and-file voters, so this analysis may not even really apply.

Anyway, too bad Intrade is shut down -- betting on the Speakership would be an interesting market right now. Cantor is obviously the traditional next-in-line, but the GOP has been particularly aggressive in upending seniority (viz. Paul Ryan himself, almost all of the leadership: Whip is Kevin McCarthy, elected 2006; Conference Chair is Cathy McMorris Rodgers, elected 2004; even Cantor and Ryan haven't been there that long in House historical terms. Others who might seem to be in a position to make a play could include Peter King making a bid for a moderate/centrist Speaker at exactly the wrong moment in GOP history, or perhaps Daryl Issa, but a lot of the other committee chairs are older or probably like their existing power. Rohrabacher? Camp? Bachus? But certainly some cretin such as Neugebauer or Gohmert will throw his hat in to stand for the Tea Party interests. It's hard to say without some insider knowledge; I didn't have much idea who Steny Hoyer was when he was challenging Pelosi, for instance, but he certainly seemed to have plenty of Dems who had his back.

Anyway, if there's any silver lining here, it's that the Tea Party default position is that all the elected GOP are RINOs unless proven otherwise. There hardly is a name they fully trust. I think that bodes well for them being marginalized in any Speakership fight, and they'll have to accept a more sedate, traditional guy like Cantor (who a few years ago was a snotty firebrand, but has been seriously outflanked on that front), with slightly sharper True Conservative credentials.
posted by dhartung at 3:08 AM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Free Vibrator For Federal Employees During The Government Shutdown
posted by jeffburdges at 3:35 AM on October 8, 2013

Are we now envisioning this shutdown might run for months?
posted by jeffburdges at 3:36 AM on October 8, 2013

Well, I am envisioning it, but I'm in Chicken Little mode, so don't mind me.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:38 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Forcing a vote and then failing to get the votes for a clean CR is a big win for the Republicans. It moves the conversation from being about a handful of extremists holding the economy hostage to why President Obama won't negotiate with congress.

Huh? Half of one house of one branch of the US government is still an extremist minority, and they're still holding the economy hostage over a law they don't like and failed 40 times to stop under Constitutional rules. Something like 70% and rising of Americans disapprove of this tactic, I don't see how a failure of a clean CR passing helps them here, especially if it leads to default.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:55 AM on October 8, 2013

"Rep. John Fleming (R-La.), a doctor, an owner of sub shops and an elected coroner before joining Congress, said he heard only positive comments during a tele-town hall last week as the shutdown began.

"Our constituents are saying, 'Hey, you guys hang in there,'" said Fleming, who won his seat in 2008. "I couldn't keep them on topic because for them, they go, 'Shutdown? That stuff is happening in Washington. That doesn't affect our everyday life.' They're going, 'Keep fighting against Obamacare.'""

It's breathtaking how really blind people are about this. The shutdown doesn't affect their everyday life?? It will next week when they don't get their social security checks and can't pay their 20% for their chemo infusion that is keeping them alive. Or to put gas in their car to get to the store to not be able to afford anything more than a can of pork and beans. Oh wait, I'm sure all those people have thousands in savings because THEY can take care of themselves and nothing bad will ever happen to them. Because they're good people and God loves them.
posted by hollygoheavy at 5:31 AM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

I'm more surprised that 'coroner' is an electable position. Surely that's not, like, dead people coroner, is it?
posted by Think_Long at 5:38 AM on October 8, 2013

Think_Long: "I'm more surprised that 'coroner' is an electable position. Surely that's not, like, dead people coroner, is it?"

yup
posted by exogenous at 5:43 AM on October 8, 2013

From Wired: There’s a Major Foodborne Illness Outbreak and the Government’s Shut Down

Presumably, many/all of the relevant CDC folks will get called back to work without pay, but still...
posted by Going To Maine at 5:54 AM on October 8, 2013

It much easier to sell a story about house leadership being held hostage by a few extremists than it is to sell a story about an entire party being extremists. I think most people will hear the latter story and assume that it's the usual partisan bickering. That's probably why the Democrats have concentrated their attacks on specific politicians, Cruz and Boehner.

Polling has three-fourths of independents and half of moderate Republicans disapproving of the GOP's handling of the shutdown, and that's just for the shutdown. Global economic catastrophe doesn't seem like it would poll better.

Also, if Boehner holds the Republicans together for a repudiation of a clean CR, then he's strengthened and he appears to be a credible negotiating partner even if we know that he isn't. It quite probable that I'm wrong but that's the way it looks to me.

Literally no one thinks that Boehner is holding anyone or anything together. The left thinks he's being controlled by the Tea Party, the Tea Party thinks he's being controlled by Obama and RINO squishes, independents' disapproval of the GOP on this is currently running at something like a 50% margin compared to approval. The Senate has already defeated a filibuster and passed a bill in their chamber, and Reid is going to hold a clean CR vote in the next couple days that seems to have bipartisan support for cloture and a majority for passage. Boehner has already publicly stated earlier this year that he would not default and even two weeks ago said he wanted a clean CR. The NYT and WaPo have corroborated sources of Boehner saying this privately in the last week. Meanwhile, Obama has publicly challenged Boehner to pass a bill, and every day he refuses he's not holding firm on anything but not bringing it up to a vote.

I mean, sure, I guess that narrative may disappear, but at the moment denying it means you have to ignore a whole lot of stuff going on.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:02 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Think_Long: "I'm more surprised that 'coroner' is an electable position. Surely that's not, like, dead people coroner, is it?"

yup

what the fuck
posted by Think_Long at 6:04 AM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Shutdown puts college sexual assault investigations on pause

Responsible for enforcing Title IX, the Office for Civil Rights reviews and investigates sexual violence policies at colleges and universities that are accused of violating the gender equity law and the Clery Act, which requires all colleges and universities to disclose all information about campus crimes, including sexual offenses.

The shutdown has backlogged sexual violence complaints and has also currently placed on-site visits, communication with federal investigators, and case and follow-up reviews on hold, according to French. Students at various colleges and universities have accused their schools of violating Title IX and the Clery Act, and of mishandling cases of sexual misconduct.

“With the increase in federal investigations of sexual assault cases, it’s really a shame to see the process slow down,” said Scott Berkowitz, president and founder of RAINN, the nation’s largest anti-sexual violence organization.

Students who filed formal complaints hoped these investigations would hold colleges more accountable in addressing sexual violence. ”Hopefully, colleges and universities themselves won’t use this as an excuse to delay their own investigations. In terms of protecting public safety and victims of sexual violence on campus, the college has that responsibility. There’s absolutely no excuse in not following through on that,” Berkowitz told MSNBC.

posted by zombieflanders at 6:06 AM on October 8, 2013

Some data from Pew for those who want to feel concerned about the shutdown. Derek Thompson at the Atlantic has put it into a feel-bad graph.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:08 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

god is this still happening hell
posted by angrycat at 6:08 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

I had to look up data on local trees for this novella and all my go to sites where down because of this asshattery so basically I'm casting spells and hexes against them.
posted by The Whelk at 6:11 AM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Some data from Pew for those who want to feel concerned about the shutdown.

Good to know that as pessimistic as I could be about this whole thing, things seem to be much worse.

We've been getting a lot of communication about potential furloughs over the past few days, and at this point I'm counting up my vacation days to see how long I can last. The most concerning point I've seen so far was one small bullet point that said we would be recalled from furlough "if your position is still available". So now I'm expecting furloughs followed by layoffs. Coupled with that, several of the programs I was allocated to seem to have vaporized, so only about half of my time is currently spoken for. Not looking good.
posted by backseatpilot at 6:16 AM on October 8, 2013

is this still happening

The debt deadline isn't until next week, so I'd be very surprised if any progress is made before, say, next Wednesday evening.
posted by ceribus peribus at 6:20 AM on October 8, 2013

you know, if this were a movie, this excruciating wait and accompanying tension would pay off in some akin to Biden's debate performance. With nerds screaming with joy and collapsing in the aisles and such.

Hey! Wouldn't this be a great time for aliens to come? A battle to survive would sort this all out, yeah?
posted by angrycat at 6:23 AM on October 8, 2013

If we all work hard, maybe we can pull a Watchmen.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:25 AM on October 8, 2013

The guy who saluted the Capitol and set himself on fire on the National Mall last week has been identified. The family is calling it a “personal family matter and not an issue of public concern."

So in the past month - and two within days of each other - mentally ill persons have come to DC and caused havoc.
posted by troika at 6:42 AM on October 8, 2013

Ugh, yeah, I hope the new bums are better. Are there any organizations that help to identify promising challengers?
posted by troika at 6:48 AM on October 8, 2013

Michelle Bachmann says The End Is Near.

Hey! Wouldn't this be a great time for aliens to come?

Cue plug for one of my favorite sf novels ever, John Kessel's Good News From Outer Space. It was some crazy shit back in '89; now it's practically ripped from the headlines.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:55 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Wouldn't this be a great time for aliens to come?

You're a jerk America. A complete kneebiter.

(I'm sorry, were you expecting Klaatu to come and teach us a Very Important Lesson about putting aside our petty differences and behaving like civilized denizens of the galaxy?)
posted by RonButNotStupid at 6:56 AM on October 8, 2013 [12 favorites]

And yet the stock market remains relatively unfazed. It's really interesting: the big money managers are using this as a buying opportunity, because they think that default will be avoided and that the market is shaking out weak hands. But every day that things hum along normally on Wall Street, the Tea Partiers become more emboldened and the less they fear a default. It's a huge game of chicken. None of the big players want their cash to be on the sidelines when a deal is made, but the longer they keep their money in stocks, the more likely a default becomes. Who's going to blink first?
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 6:58 AM on October 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

no i was thinking fleeing and screaming and dying via lazergun
posted by angrycat at 6:58 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Roy Zimmerman on the shutdown: School the House Rock

(bonus: Defenders of Marriage, Socialist!, Ted Haggard Is Completely Heterosexual, Vote Republican, To the Victims of This Tragedy We Send Our Thoughts and Prayers.)
posted by Rhomboid at 7:00 AM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

you know, if this were a movie, this excruciating wait and accompanying tension would pay off in some akin to Biden's debate performance. With nerds screaming with joy and collapsing in the aisles and such.

Unfortunately, it would more likely play out like this [NSFW].
posted by Rykey at 7:19 AM on October 8, 2013

New Post live update page for news on the shutdown. A couple of House Republicans have backed off support of a clean CR, with the Post now counting 21 Republican supporters.
posted by exogenous at 7:31 AM on October 8, 2013

Free Vibrator For Federal Employees During The Government Shutdown

They should have offered free vibrators to Republican Congressmen and called it the "Go Fuck Yourself" sale.
posted by entropicamericana at 7:35 AM on October 8, 2013 [8 favorites]

The new bums will be better if there is objective reason for them to believe they will be thrown out promptly if they try this shit again. There have to be dozens of House Republicans who live in close-enough districts that this is making them nervous already.

The risk to the GOP House majority

Individually, the district-by-district swing is quite variable, +4% to -23% (where + indicates a swing toward Republicans). But the average is clear, -10.9+/-1.5% (mean+/-SEM). That predicts a national popular-vote margin of D+12.0%.

Since the election is over a year away, it is hard to predict how this will translate to future seat gain/loss. If the election were held today, Democrats would pick up around 30 seats, giving them control of the chamber. I do not expect this to happen. Many things will happen in the coming 12 months, and the current crisis might be a distant memory. But at this point I do expect Democrats to pick up seats next year, an exception to the midterm rule.

Note that in these calculations I did not even include the worst of the news for Republicans. In a followup series of questions, PPP then told respondents that their representative voted for the shutdown. At that point, the average swing moved a further 3.1% toward Democrats, and 22 out of 24 points were in the gray zone. That would be more like a 50-seat gain for Democrats – equivalent to a wave election. An analyst would have to be crazy to predict that! However, it seems like mandatory information for a Democratic campaign strategist – or any Republican incumbent who won by less than 20 points in 2012.

posted by zombieflanders at 7:36 AM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

So in the past month - and two within days of each other - mentally ill persons have come to DC and caused havoc.

And they weren't even Congressmen!
posted by entropicamericana at 7:37 AM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

...aaaaaannnd it's official! I'm being furloughed next week. Guess I need to start growing my five-o-clock shadow and find my dirty sweatpants.
posted by backseatpilot at 7:39 AM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

There should be a tumblr of furlough beards.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:42 AM on October 8, 2013 [8 favorites]

Furlough Loafer Fur?
posted by Rykey at 7:47 AM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Senate Republicans to block back pay bill for furloughed workers. Oh yay, I was concerned there'd be one less thing to worry about. Docket still full!
posted by psoas at 7:53 AM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

I'm gonna go ahead and coin the term "furloafer" (UK spelling: furloughfer) to refer to those who are involuntarily sitting at home right now because of the shutdown. Har, har, I got a million of 'em...
posted by Rykey at 7:53 AM on October 8, 2013

At this rate, I worry about this affecting student loan disbursements for next spring, on top of everything else.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:57 AM on October 8, 2013

At this rate, I worry about this affecting student loan disbursements for next spring, on top of everything else.

Trying really hard not to think about that.
posted by curious nu at 8:25 AM on October 8, 2013

So in the past month - and two within days of each other - mentally ill persons have come to DC and caused havoc.

that shit's been going on for years. it's just that those two weren't elected.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 8:39 AM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

(Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates: "And yet the stock market remains relatively unfazed. It's really interesting: the big money managers are using this as a buying opportunity, because they think that default will be avoided and that the market is shaking out weak hands. But every day that things hum along normally on Wall Street, the Tea Partiers become more emboldened and the less they fear a default. It's a huge game of chicken. ..."

It's a disturbing example of a... positive semi-feedback loop. Or... rather a mismatch in signalling vs reception... One side misunderstands the other, and believes it'll just get right on back to business as usual. The other side sees the one sides belief that it's business as usual as a sign to keep pushing, because if the "rational" markets aren't worried, why should we be worried? And then it keeps going.
posted by symbioid at 8:40 AM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

Hemorrhoids, toenail fungus, dog poop, and cockroaches all might be a little bit gross- but they're all more popular than Congress. Hemorhoids beat out Congress 53/31 with bipartisan support. On the other three there's a partisan split- Republican voters go for Congress while Democrats take the alternative but overall it's a 47/40 victory for dog poop, a 44/41 one for toenail fungus, and a 44/42 triump for cockroaches.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:48 AM on October 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

via Washington Post: Summaries of the Obama/Boehner call this morning
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:56 AM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

222 representatives for a clean CR right now (including 22 Republicans), 4 Republicans leaning yes, 206 against. I expect in Obama's WH presser at 2pm he's gonna hammer on the "bring it to a vote, see what happens" point.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:06 AM on October 8, 2013

Dave Weigel paints a picture of the Republican perspective: Crisis? What Crisis?
posted by Going To Maine at 9:08 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Dave Weigel paints a picture of the Republican perspective: Crisis? What Crisis?

It’s terrifying what some top Republicans believe about the debt ceiling

Also: Right-wing nutjobs’ last stand: The debt limit endgame arrives

House conservatives’ self-imposed intellectual insulation has left them surrounded by charlatans who say there’s no risk of default at all. That Treasury can structure payments so that the country’s creditors are held harmless. Some of these hacks know better, but would rather lie than watch Republicans lose their nerve before Obama blinks (which they’re convinced he will). In truth, this kind of prioritization is unlawful, and, relatedly, outside the government’s technical capacity.

After two and a half years of debt limit threats and the attendant deluge of misinformation, an alarming number of Republicans think this way. Party leadership is complicit in allowing these dangerous fantasies to flourish, but fortunately they haven’t succumbed, themselves.

Which is why — as volatile as things are, and as disconcerting as the shutdown is — it’s a mistake to interpret stories about the view from inside the conservative bubble as reflective of the party leadership’s ultimate intent. House Republicans might be an ungovernable mess. But the people who control the floor understand the real dangers of breaching the debt limit. And Democrats don’t need more than 15 or 20 Republican votes to cut the right loose and increase the debt limit. As weak as John Boehner is, he’s not that weak. If we breach, it will be because he chose not to deliver them.

posted by zombieflanders at 9:11 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

But every day that things hum along normally on Wall Street, the Tea Partiers become more emboldened and the less they fear a default. It's a huge game of chicken. None of the big players want their cash to be on the sidelines when a deal is made, but the longer they keep their money in stocks, the more likely a default becomes. Who's going to blink first?

This is one big way that crashes happen, isn't it? Investors know in advance that some unusual risk is imminent, but they have an institutional imperative to cash out at just the right time, and as a result, everything seems okay until suddenly everyone is divesting bonds at once and then traders get quoted saying things like "We all knew, everybody knew, but we wanted to make sure we weren't selling last"? Or will people be genuinely surprised if we do default? Would that be worse?

Or is the bond market different in some important way that would alter such dynamics?
posted by clockzero at 9:12 AM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

via Washington Post: Summaries of the Obama/Boehner call this morning

@OKnox: Interesting that White House and Speaker Boehner both opted (agreed?) not to describe what Boehner told Pres Obama.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:28 AM on October 8, 2013

These assholes make me feel guilty for defending Capitalism. Christ. That is, I don't want to see us falter, but then it says "S&P will lose 10% of value" oh noes! but yet.. .damn. It will suck, because we all are affected by such things, even if Capital is affected more.
posted by symbioid at 9:29 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Ironically, I've just been declared "essential" after a week of being non-essential. So Im going back in to work tomorrow working on an IOU, while more people are getting furloughed.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:33 AM on October 8, 2013

Problem with the clean CR numbers is, how many of those Republicans are just saying they would support it to play "It's not me, it's them" to their constituents, but would vote with the party anyway when their bluff gets called?

Hard to say. And as mentioned above, forcing the vote and then losing would be pretty embarassing for the Dems.
posted by ctmf at 9:38 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Ironically, I've just been declared "essential" after a week of being non-essential.

Consider it an upgrade.
Congratulations!
posted by sour cream at 9:38 AM on October 8, 2013

via Washington Post: Summaries of the Obama/Boehner call this morning

Out of curiosity, I went to foxnews.com to see if/how they were reporting on this call, and of course:

Digging In: Obama calls Boehner to say won't negotiate, plans to make statement

Fair and Balanced, indeed.
posted by Roommate at 9:41 AM on October 8, 2013

Some government offices have been using unpaid interns to replace furloughed workers.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 9:42 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Some government offices have been using unpaid interns to replace furloughed workers.

The slimdown is working!
posted by sour cream at 9:46 AM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Some government offices have been using unpaid interns to replace furloughed workers.

That's how Monica Lewinsky came to be in the Oval Office.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:48 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

And that's how Bill Clinton came in the Oval Office.
posted by mazola at 9:53 AM on October 8, 2013 [17 favorites]

It is disturbing how high the pro-asshole numbers are on the Pew poll. The dumbing down of America is seriously succeeding. The Princeton numbers are encouraging for the GOP losing power except for two things noted elsewhere (I've lost track of where): the higher number of extremely-one-party-or-the-other districts than ever before and the Democrats' difficulty in being able to field decent candidates (which apparently kept them from making more gains in Congress in '12 than they did). A poll with "a generic Democrat" is not the same as a poll with "candidate targeted for attack by the TeaParty Machine".

Some government offices have been using unpaid interns to replace furloughed workers.
The slimdown is working!

It is getting harder to differentiate sarcasm from actual FoxNews talking points. Anyway, I suspect Rupert Murdoch is telling his broker to short everything he doesn't control.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:53 AM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

The White House should make a promo of previous Republican sound bites (from an admittedly different topic) expounding "Allow an Up or Down vote". (Now that would come back to haunt,but fun)
posted by sammyo at 9:57 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Gee, Milko, let's hope Kentucky can get to the root of its recent salmonella outbreak.

Not to be confused with the salmonella outbreak going on in California...

Meanwhile, with 45% percent of the FDA's workers furloughed, the department's Contingency Staffing Plan (PDF) means that it "will also have to cease safety activities such as routine establishment inspections, some compliance and enforcement activities, monitoring of imports, notification programs (e.g., food contact substances, infant formula), and the majority of the laboratory research necessary to inform public health decision-making."

That Rump Republicans triggered this shutdown over health care is just the frosting of irony on this tartine de merde à la Washington that we're all going to have to take a bite of.
posted by Doktor Zed at 9:58 AM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

how many of those Republicans are just saying they would support it to play "It's not me, it's them" to their constituents, but would vote with the party anyway when their bluff gets called?

It's hard to say. But the shutdown-supporting Reps haven't been shy about saying so. It's their saying so that gets them cred with the radicals. So there's little profit in squandering that cred and then voting with them anyway. I assume that if a GOP Rep is calling to reopen the Govenment, then he's saying what he thinks his district wants to hear.
posted by octobersurprise at 10:00 AM on October 8, 2013

I've been trying to puzzle out exactly what morons think "obamacare" is going to do to ruin America.

It was a mistake to leave the oceans in the first place.
posted by maxwelton at 10:07 AM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Problem with the clean CR numbers is, how many of those Republicans are just saying they would support it to play "It's not me, it's them" to their constituents, but would vote with the party anyway when their bluff gets called?

Hard to say. And as mentioned above, forcing the vote and then losing would be pretty embarassing for the Dems.

If Boehner had the votes to defeat the bill, he would have allowed a vote by now, for exactly this reason. Unless he has a come-to-Jesus moment^*, then if he ever announces that he will allow the vote, he will have made sure that he has enough members to kill the bill.

*: I mean come-to-vaguely-sane-Jesus, not come-to-Republican-Jesus
posted by Flunkie at 10:16 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Republicans are trying to spin this as a Democratic shutdown, losing a clean vote because of Republicans kind of puts an end to that. The shutdown is not popular.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:26 AM on October 8, 2013

It is disturbing how high the pro-asshole numbers are on the Pew poll. The dumbing down of America is seriously succeeding.

Democrats, Obama - put your best messaging on this pronto. Do not let the "pox on both their houses" sentiment take root more than they have already.
posted by madamjujujive at 10:33 AM on October 8, 2013 [10 favorites]

I'm amazed at the amount of "dems won't negotiate" and anti-obama sentiment on twitter. the shitbags certainly have their message machine cranking...
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 10:37 AM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Do not let the "pox on both their houses" sentiment take root more than they have already.

But that's how most of the "liberal media" show they're being impartial! "The View From Nowhere" it's called, and it's taken 'Journalism' into a black hole.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:43 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Christ, it's like they want goldilocks.

Too much dysfunction, "they're all crooks, can't get a damn thing done"...
Too much function, "they're all big government jerks takin' away our freedom."

Nope - they need goldilocks level of dysfunction - just right.
posted by symbioid at 10:55 AM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Exclusive Gyms For Members Of Congress Deemed ‘Essential,’ Remain Open During Shutdown

...According to the aide, the decision to keep the gym open — even while other critical government services were shelved — came directly from Speaker Boehner’s office. Meanwhile, the staff gym available to Congressional staff has been closed.
posted by Artw at 11:35 AM on October 8, 2013 [10 favorites]

Bravo on HuffPo's Sam Stein, who just asked Obama a question about the very real harm that sequestration is doing and how horrible it is that that is the "acceptable" outcome.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:42 AM on October 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

And Obama answered it fairly reasonably, i.e. those were the concessions already made, and that was before the GOP lost the election.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:46 AM on October 8, 2013

: "And yet the stock market remains relatively unfazed."

The markets are down the past couple days. I've personally contributed to this--I moved everything in my 401k into cash, just like in 2011. Nothing good can come of this. Either the republicans sober up and the market doesn't crash (but really, nobody's going to get a good feeling about the future when the 'business friendly' party is willing to burn the nation to 'save it') or things get bad, in which case cash will be king.
posted by mullingitover at 11:46 AM on October 8, 2013

I do applaud Stein for asking that, but I'm not sure what Obama is supposed to do at this point. The market for T-Bills is showing early signs of panic, and he's supposed to what, respond to the GOP shutting down the government over Obamacare with a counter-offer of "Obamacare stays, the government reopens, and oh, by the way, undo the sequestration cuts?" If anything, you can fault the strategy surrounding the supercommittee and such that led to sequestration, but now is not the time to be complaining that Obama's giving away too much by keeping the status quo.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:48 AM on October 8, 2013

Bravo on HuffPo's Sam Stein, who just asked Obama a question about the very real harm that sequestration is doing and how horrible it is that that is the "acceptable" outcome.

What makes something acceptable is whether it has the votes. Sequestration was the only thing that had the votes. We have to stop pretending that the votes were there for anything but the supercommittee or sequestration.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:48 AM on October 8, 2013

My point was that Stein was illustrating something that a lot of people have been dismissing, not that Congress or Obama should go on a quixotic crusade to undo them post-haste.
posted by zombieflanders at 11:52 AM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

Obama should go on a quixotic crusade to undo them post-haste.

Sure -- but priority #1 is making sure there's a government left to restore funding to. Like I said, I like the press reminding Obama that the status quo isn't acceptable either, but strategically, it's not a great time for him to be talking loudly about wanting to undo cuts.
posted by tonycpsu at 11:55 AM on October 8, 2013

This is getting crazy. It's a political re-fight of many of the same (political) issues which were fought over in the Civil War. A political minority is asserting they have the right to nullify majority-passed laws or they destroy the country. And it's many of the same assholes in the south and rural areas doing the fighting.

This was settled 150 years ago. You don't get to own people. You don't get to secede. And, no, you don't get to hold a veto over the majority and destroy the country if you don't get your way.
posted by Justinian at 11:55 AM on October 8, 2013 [19 favorites]

Interesting take on the 14th Amendment and Platinum Coin tactics from Obama, putting a lot of consideration into the idea that either one still ends with shaken confidence and uncertainty while things are tied up in legal challenges so neither is a great solution.

Not to mention that the issuance of debt is Congress' enumerated right. The President has no right to issue debt. A line in the 14th Amendment saying that the debt of the government "shall not be questioned" does not override the explicit language of Article I, Section 8 which gives Congress the power to raise debt.
posted by Ironmouth at 11:57 AM on October 8, 2013

Minting of the platinum coin is not debt and therefore not in conflict with the Congress' enumerated rights.
posted by JackFlash at 12:05 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

This is getting crazy. It's a political re-fight of many of the same (political) issues which were fought over in the Civil War. A political minority is asserting they have the right to nullify majority-passed laws or they destroy the country. And it's many of the same assholes in the south and rural areas doing the fighting.

Bill Moyers: Let's Call The Shutdown What It Is: Secession By Another Means

Also: Ex-GOP insider unloads: Blame “neo-Confederate insurrectionists” for shutdown!

So in the lead-up to the shutdown and the way it’s played out so far, what if anything has surprised you?

Nothing. Of course the media is kind of covering it like the Michigan-Ohio State game, and love anything with a countdown clock or supposed suspense and all this other crap, and the easy visuals of some park service guy putting up a sawhorse at the Jefferson Memorial. None of that surprised me. [But] this is not something happening according to exigent circumstances or happenstance. This is something that the GOP wanted.

And I’ll say this: I am not an Obama partisan. I have many bones to pick with him, including the healthcare bill. If your intent was to insure as many people as possible, you’d have single payer. You also wouldn’t pay off big Pharma and the insurance companies. That said, the difference between what Obama and the Republicans are doing is like the difference between stomach upset and galloping Ebola.

These people are basically neo-Confederate insurrectionists. They are in substantive rebellion against the orderly government of the country. And one of the things I noticed — and it’s something that’s very common in human beings — we all try to mollify or appease the crazy uncle at Thanksgiving dinner. You know, “Don’t make a scene.” Well, I noticed in the last few years of my service on the Hill that a number of Democrats seemed to be afraid of Republicans. And Obama pretty much wasted his first term trying to mollify them. I think he’s finally stumbled upon a strategy that’s better: simply not give them what they demand. Because this is a deliberate strategy to hold the government hostage.

posted by zombieflanders at 12:06 PM on October 8, 2013 [25 favorites]

Either the republicans sober up and the market doesn't crash (...) or things get bad, in which case cash will be king.

If the worst case scenario of national default occurs, then "cash" in the form of a money market account in your 401k is the last place that you want to be. MMs all hold short term debt, whose market is likely to freeze up if the US actually stops paying its debt. Then you start to look at real nightmare scenarios like MM funds "breaking the buck" as a few did back when the credit markets last froze in, I want to say, 2009. Runs on funds. But unlike 2009, the federal government won't be around to provide a bailout because they're all out of money.

Maybe. Probably. But nobody really knows what will happen if webdefault like this, and you really don't want to find out.
posted by indubitable at 12:19 PM on October 8, 2013

Minting of the platinum coin is not debt and therefore not in conflict with the Congress' enumerated rights.

it also is pretty hard to challenge in the Supreme Court. But the problem is this--what is the impact on the markets of doing this? Or the "premium bonds?" The idea that there is some sort of way to frustrate the GOP and not destroy the economy is pretty fake. The markets will tank--because each workaround will send the same message--the U.S. cannot pay its bills. And the Platinum coin is gimmicky and politically unstable.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:21 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

The markets will tank--because each workaround will send the same message--the U.S. cannot pay its bills. And the Platinum coin is gimmicky and politically unstable.

Is there an option for the President that doesn't tank the markets to some degree in the event that we do hit the debt limit? If not, then he should take the option that tanks the markets the least. I think it's still an open question which route that is, but my bet would be on the platinum coin.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 12:30 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Fe --

The coin may be gimmicky and politically unstable, but is it the least bad alternative if the House doesn't raise the debt limit?

I tend to think in terms of "universal default". Even if the US (somehow) pays interest on the debt, I don't think the US will not be in default. And of course, it may not even be technically possible to keep paying only selected bills.

One thing I don't think I seen made perfectly clear -- Obama probably breaks the law no matter what happens if the debt limit isn't raised and he doesn't mint the coin. It's arguably illegal for the Executive to pick what bills to pay. And it's illegal for him to raise debt to pay them all.

No matter what, the House can vote to impeach on something if they so choose.

This stuff is pretty much unprecedented. For Conservatives, their plan is pretty radical!

Of course, they are reactionary radicals, not conservatives so this contradiction is in name only.
posted by jclarkin at 12:33 PM on October 8, 2013

The markets will tank--because each workaround will send the same message--the U.S. cannot pay its bills. And the Platinum coin is gimmicky and politically unstable.

Is there an option for the President that doesn't tank the markets to some degree in the event that we do hit the debt limit? If not, then he should take the option that tanks the markets the least. I think it's still an open question which route that is, but my bet would be on the platinum coin.

I don't know if there really is some sort of thing that doesn't very quickly erode the dollar so fast that it doesn't really matter. In fact, it would be better for the GOP to come to the table after a default because the immediate restoration of regular debt issuance is better than the GOP continuing to hang on and continuing doubt.

Frankly, I suspect and pray that Boehner will basically open up a debt limit bill on the floor at the last minute and allow for a vote. Then he can call the rump's bluff.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:34 PM on October 8, 2013

it also is pretty hard to challenge in the Supreme Court. But the problem is this--what is the impact on the markets of doing this? Or the "premium bonds?" The idea that there is some sort of way to frustrate the GOP and not destroy the economy is pretty fake. The markets will tank--because each workaround will send the same message--the U.S. cannot pay its bills. And the Platinum coin is gimmicky and politically unstable.

It's the least politically unstable of all scenarios where John Boehner doesn't do the right thing, so it needs to be in the President's back pocket at the first sign of an "oh shit" sell-off in the markets.
posted by tonycpsu at 12:37 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

I have a radical thought: Couldn't Nancy Pelosi give Boehner assurances that if he faces a challenge to his Speakership because he allowed a vote on the debt ceiling that she will provide enough Democratic votes to keep him as Speaker, assuming Republicans are still in the majority?
posted by Justinian at 12:39 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Couldn't Nancy Pelosi give Boehner assurances that if he faces a challenge to his Speakership because he allowed a vote on the debt ceiling that she will provide enough Democratic votes to keep him as Speaker, assuming Republicans are still in the majority?

Flagged as potential candidate for Best Double Cross ever!
posted by RolandOfEld at 12:50 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Is the markets tanking even a bad thing? Arguably the 14th Amendment says the treasury must pay bond holder before federal contractors. All those corporations should know the Tea party caused this. If otoh Boehner, "does the right thing" the Tea party just roles along.
posted by jeffburdges at 12:51 PM on October 8, 2013

It's arguably illegal for the Executive to pick what bills to pay.

I think it's illegal without getting approval for impoundment from Congress, and I'm a little worried the House Republicans will try to stall on that so he's breaking the law no matter which way he turns, just to be spiteful shits.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:55 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Who should Obama name the coin after? A few thoughts:

The Roosevelt
The Truman
The LBJ
The Clinton
The Sherman
The John Brown
posted by Golden Eternity at 12:57 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

The Bo(ugh)ner.
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 12:58 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Sherman

That would be glorious.
posted by jason_steakums at 12:58 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Definitely The Truman.
posted by Iridic at 12:59 PM on October 8, 2013

The Ayn Rand

Because he'd be acting as a bold individualist.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:01 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Call it the Reagan. It'll piss off the extreme right wing who worship his carcass and he was the father of huge deficit spending. Plus, they want him on a coin so it's pretty much "compromise" as defined by the modern Republican party.
posted by cmfletcher at 1:03 PM on October 8, 2013 [12 favorites]

The trolliest move would obviously be to put his own face on it. The Obama.
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:03 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

I'm thinking Samuel Adams on the obverse and a depiction of the Boston Tea Party on the reverse.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:04 PM on October 8, 2013

Couldn't Nancy Pelosi give Boehner assurances that if he faces a challenge to his Speakership because he allowed a vote on the debt ceiling that she will provide enough Democratic votes to keep him as Speaker, assuming Republicans are still in the majority?

Not an American, and not certain how the election of the Speaker works, but if that is possible and it's how things proceed, I think this would pretty much be the explicit, highly visible moment of split of the Republican party into two different parties.
posted by nubs at 1:04 PM on October 8, 2013

What Republican would be caught dead voting for a Pelosi-backed Speaker? Even if such a vote could be forced in the first place.

And regarding the platinum coin, again, the Fed has explicitly said that they would refuse to accept it for deposit.

Has there ever been any judicial decisions on the debt limit? Maybe the best thing to do would be to bring a case against it trying to declare it unconstitutional, as it amounts to a command by Congress that the president is not allowed to do what Congress has commanded him to do.
posted by Flunkie at 1:04 PM on October 8, 2013

But yeah, if it comes to the coin, I third "The Sherman".
posted by Flunkie at 1:07 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

And regarding the platinum coin, again, the Fed has explicitly said that they would refuse to accept it for deposit.

Ah, but has the Fed explicitly said that they would refuse to accept two platinum coins for deposit?

LAWYERED
posted by Etrigan at 1:08 PM on October 8, 2013 [26 favorites]

I'm giving a second vote to the Ayn Rand. I think this could really get conservative support behind the coin; it would be solid, real money, not like this make believe fiat money that the Fed and the rest of the government produces.
posted by Balna Watya at 1:09 PM on October 8, 2013

Couldn't Nancy Pelosi give Boehner assurances that if he faces a challenge to his Speakership because he allowed a vote on the debt ceiling that she will provide enough Democratic votes to keep him as Speaker

An iteration of this idea was discussed earlier in this very long thread, back on October 1. And more recently, when it was pointed out that the Speaker position is not decided by his caucus alone.

I think the answer is, yes, in theory. But in reality, no way. First, Boehner would not remain Speaker for long if he accepted that offer. The Rs still have the majority in the House, and they wouldn't countenance a Speaker who had become D in all but name. Second, I bet Boehner would lose his seat. And third, the reason this guy is being such a dick is in part because he's a coward, but mostly because he puts his loyalty to the party ahead of his loyalty to the country.
posted by bearwife at 1:11 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

It should also be a coin in the form of a 10,000 pound block of platinum. Then we can move it back and forth to pay people off very.... slowly... and eventually devise a social system of keeping track of who currently owns the giant block of platinum so as to avoid actually moving the damned thing around. In the end, it falls off a boat in transit to China, but the supreme court decides that it still provides value to the owner, even from the bottom of the ocean.
posted by kaibutsu at 1:12 PM on October 8, 2013 [11 favorites]

not like this make believe fiat money

Well I don't think it's a traditional gold backed currency but could I redeem it for a couple of years of full U.S. military commitment to the location of my choice? It'll be our modern service economy's answer to a currency backed in precious metals.
posted by cmfletcher at 1:14 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

I know it's been explained over and over again why a $1,000,000,000,000 platinum coin wouldn't really be acceptable and even if was it wouldn't settle the bond markets and even if it was possible it just wouldn't be done.

But. But. I would love to see Republicans impeach Obama for issuing the Platinum Gipper. The most valuable coin to ever be minted, with Reagan's face on it. How can they object? How would the mint fit that many zeros on the face of the coin? Would they also print "This coin is legal tender for all debts public or private"?

(Yes, I know. Not gonna happen. While we're on ponies, I'd like to see that heist movie too.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:14 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

I know, if every person the US would just send in 500,000 pennies each to Congress in a Capra-esque show of unity, we could put all this behind us!
posted by entropicamericana at 1:15 PM on October 8, 2013

it would be solid, real money,

A trillion dollars worth of platinum would make an awfully big coin. Maybe they could make it out of a few tons of weapons grade plutonium and name it the Goldwater coin.
posted by Golden Eternity at 1:15 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Has there ever been any judicial decisions on the debt limit? Maybe the best thing to do would be to bring a case against it trying to declare it unconstitutional, as it amounts to a command by Congress that the president is not allowed to do what Congress has commanded him to do.

From what I gather, someone has to have standing to bring the suit, which likely means that we'd have to crash through the debt ceiling and head into default first so someone's affected and then Obama, or the Republicans (if Obama chooses a Constitutionally iffy solution), or bondholders affected by default, or somebody can file suit against somebody else involved and get the ball rolling. And then wait for the suit to work its way up the chain. And then the Supreme Court can call it a political question and avoid ruling on it if they like (though maybe not if it's a bondholder filing suit?).
posted by jason_steakums at 1:16 PM on October 8, 2013

Maybe they could make it out of a few tons of weapons grade plutonium and name it the Goldwater coin.

Oooooh, the LeMay! When you need to nuke the debt ceiling and never have it be a problem, ever again.
posted by RedOrGreen at 1:17 PM on October 8, 2013 [8 favorites]

Imaginary but wonderful silver lining : All federal prison contractors are forced to provide months of services at their own expense. Obama eventually pardons all non-violent drug offenders.
posted by jeffburdges at 1:19 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Perhaps Obama should get off his ass and actually do some work for the country.

Issue a gift certificate good for $1,000,000,000,000.00 worth of back and foot massages (expiration date 12/31/2016).
posted by DynamiteToast at 1:20 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Perhaps Obama should get off his ass and actually do some work for the country.

Like...what, exactly? He's not the problem here and he doesn't have unlimited official powers.
posted by clockzero at 1:22 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Like giving foot massages.
posted by Joey Michaels at 1:23 PM on October 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

Sorry, that was a knee-jerk.
posted by clockzero at 1:26 PM on October 8, 2013

What if in exchange for a clean CR we give the Tea Party a free pass to allow them one day of slinging uninhibited racist, misogynist, homophobic, classist, ableist & [etc]ist slurs on national TV that we agree to never speak of again, just let them get all their real concerns off their chests without all this tedious dogwhistling. Surely that's a trade they'd be up for.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:28 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Wikipedia, at least, claims that "The plaintiff must have suffered or imminently will suffer injury" (emphasis added by me). So "lack of standing" doesn't seem to be a problem, at least not as far as just because no harm has been done yet.

As for the "political question" thing, again, I'm no lawyer, but that can't possibly mean "if there is a political squabble involving it", can it? When it boils down to it, the argument doesn't seem political at all - it's a law that disallows the president from performing his constitutional duties. Why wouldn't he be able to bring it up in court?
posted by Flunkie at 1:28 PM on October 8, 2013

we should put an elephant on the coin and call it the elephant

aside from a tribute to the party that made it all possible, by the time the markets are in full panic mode, our foreign investors are tripping over themselves to get rid of treasury bonds and the world economy is tanking, we will have all, to use a once common 19th century phrase, "seen the elephant"
posted by pyramid termite at 1:35 PM on October 8, 2013

Why wouldn't the president have standing to sue against a law that interferes with his constitutional duties? Simply because it has not yet interfered with his constitutional duties? I'm no lawyer, is that the way standing works in general - it absolutely has to have already caused harm before anyone can possibly have standing?

First off, the Debt Ceiling is 100% Constitutional. Article I Section 8 gives only Congress the right to issue debt. That's what the debt ceiling does, authorizes the issuance of debt.

Second, you are talking about an advisory opinion. They are strictly prohibited. What harm has Obama had because the GOP hasn't raised the debt ceiling? None. Only a debt holder who lost money can bring such a case.

Third, what is the remedy that still gets us money to run the government? There is simply no way the Court is going to rule that the President has unlimited powers to raise funds by issuing non-authorized debt. He can't do it. The power is exclusively accounted to Congress. In fact it is the core of democracy--the executive cannot raise funds on his own. There was an English Civil War that decided that.

As for the "political question" thing, again, I'm no lawyer, but that can't possibly mean "if there is a political squabble involving it", can it? When it boils down to it, the argument doesn't seem political at all - it's a law that disallows the president from performing his constitutional duties. Why wouldn't he be able to bring it up in court?

Who is the Plaintiff and who is the Defendant? and what is the remedy requested? An injunction to force Congress to issue debt via forcing them to vote? That's a core, absolutely core separation of powers issue. There is no way it happens.

In other words, what is the claim? I guess what I'm saying is that you can't just say "sue" and it works. You have to have a case upon which the court has the right to grant relief, otherwise the case is dismissed.

If the question is what law should be passed, yes it is a political question.

The main thing is that who is the Plaintiff--Obama? OK what is the claim he is bringing forward? Mandamus to order a vote? Political question. How exactly does the Supreme Court create relief that allows the President to issue debt on his own recognizance? There's no way it works.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:36 PM on October 8, 2013

Flunkie,

I don't think it's at all clear that the Fed legally could refuse to accept the trillion dollar platinum coin. See, for some discussion, this piece over at New Economic Perspectives.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 1:41 PM on October 8, 2013

Congress absolutely has the right to issue debt, but the separate debt ceiling vote method by which they do it now isn't anywhere in the Constitution. Would it not be valid for the Court to rule that passing the budget is issuing the debt specified in the budget? Tie the two together like a sane country.
posted by jason_steakums at 1:47 PM on October 8, 2013

No, not an injunction to force Congress to vote on raising the debt ceiling. A recognition that Congress already *has* voted to spend this money, and in fact has required the president to do so. Whether you want to say it "issued debt" or not by commanding the president to spend money that he doesn't have seems like quibbling.

It isn't quibbling. Even if the debt ceiling were unconstitutional, who then authorizes debt? And how can one rule that Congress literally intended to do something it did the opposite of? The Constitution does not allow the executive to issue debt. And the question of the debt's legality is worse on the markets than anything.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:50 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Wouldn't essential personnel who are working for IOUs have standing?
posted by Mitheral at 1:50 PM on October 8, 2013

Wouldn't essential personnel who are working for IOUs have standing?

No. They could file a case with the Merit Systems Protection Board saying their right to pay for the work they do would work, then after about 15 months it would hit the Supreme Court. This is because Congress intended title 5 and sections of title 42 to constitute the limit of the waiver of sovereign immunity as it pertains to government workers. This is really in my wheelhouse, actually. You might try a Bivens suit but it is dicey.

Anyway, this all reaches the court in 3 years. Doing us zero good.
posted by Ironmouth at 1:55 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

I guess what I'm saying is that you can't just say "sue" and it works.

Wait. That's not what Orly Taitz led me to believe.
posted by octobersurprise at 1:57 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Ironically, I've just been declared "essential" after a week of being non-essential. So Im going back in to work tomorrow working on an IOU, while more people are getting furloughed.

You, too? I can't quite see why I'm essential this week if I wasn't last week.
posted by dilettante at 1:59 PM on October 8, 2013

Senate Republicans have apparently blocked, for the 20th time this year, the request by the Dems to go to conference.

https://twitter.com/jamiedupree/status/387663152743469056

A listing of the previous nineteen times.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/19-times-democrats-tried-to-negotiate-with-republicans-20131007?mrefid=HomepageRiver
posted by longdaysjourney at 2:03 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

"Rather than seeing this as a negative, we need to rejoice, Maranatha Come Lord Jesus, His day is at hand,” Bachmann added.

Having not previously encountered the word "Maranatha," I did some googling:

If one chooses to split the two words as מרנא תא (maranâ thâ), a vocative concept with an imperative verb, then it can be translated as a command to the Lord to come. On the other hand, if one decides that the two words מרן אתא (maran 'athâ), a possessive "Our Lord" and a perfect/preterite verb "has come," are actually more warranted, then it would be seen as a credal expression. This interpretation, "Our Lord has come," is supported by what appears to be an equivalent of this in the early credal acclamation found in the biblical books of Romans 10:9 and 1 Corinthians 12:3, "Jesus is Lord."

In general, the recent interpretation has been to select the command option ("Come, Lord!"), changing older decisions to follow the preterite option ("Our Lord has come") as found in the ancient Aramaic Peshitta...

No idea if Bachmann is using it correctly or not, but basically it seems like her use to urge Jesus to come. Is this a common exclamation among apocalyptic Christians?
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:05 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Also, and unrelated, Bruce Bartlett on The Debt Limit
posted by Joey Michaels at 2:06 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

I had also never heard it before, but it sounds in that context like "inshallah," or
"god willing."
posted by troika at 2:08 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

A mithril coin would be worth even more than the platinum coin, you know.
posted by kyrademon at 2:14 PM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

Electrum. You can melt down some gold and silver and end up with a coin worth more than the component parts. It cannot fail! </nerdjoke>
posted by Justinian at 2:23 PM on October 8, 2013 [8 favorites]

Maybe we could just put the NSA to work mining bitcoin?
posted by Golden Eternity at 2:29 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

I'm really starting to become concerned that there is now way out of this other than complete economic collapse.
posted by empath at 2:46 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Letter from Atlanta Braves fan to Rep. Jack Kingston (R-GA) after the Dodgers eliminated his team in the playoffs:

"Just because we couldn't score enough runs, the Dodgers refuse to relinquish the title — and worse, they won't even discuss it. LA's stubborn refusal to even talk to us about reversing the results of this series is un-sportsmanlike and un-American. But there is an answer: If the Dodgers won't listen to the cries of average Americans like you and me, then Congress should outlaw Major League Baseball until the Dodgers cave."

(Looks like we're getting to the widespread mockery phase. I don't think Rand Paul is winning the PR battle here.)
posted by RedOrGreen at 2:48 PM on October 8, 2013 [30 favorites]

Obama needs to compromise with Bachmann by smoking a shitload of weed.
posted by Artw at 2:49 PM on October 8, 2013

Oh man, that Bruce Bartlett article:

"But it is worth noting that congressional Republicans apparently do not believe the president has inherent authority to prioritize payments and thus have voted for legislation to give him that authority. H.R. 807, the “Full Faith and Credit Act,” passed the House of Representatives on May 9, 2013 by a vote of 221 to 207. There has been no action in the Senate."

That looks an awful lot like it was an attempt at laying groundwork for later holding out on the debt ceiling. Give the President a power that only works after the debt ceiling isn't raised and works in the best interest of the Republicans, so his only clear-cut legal move in a default is to pick and choose who gets what money and they don't have to get their hands dirty.
posted by jason_steakums at 2:49 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

The more I think about it, I believe the logical outcome (if the Republicans don't cave in the last minute) will be Obama ignoring the debt ceiling and ordering the issuance of new debt.

It is one of several equally unconstitutional paths, next to not paying government debt and prioritizing payments. And it is the one path that will not only make him look like a hero for having saved the world economy (again!), but also for taking a suicide bomb out of the hands of the Republicans, who will be left foaming at the mouth in a self-destructing death spiral.

And we will be left wondering whether the whole thing wasn't planned by Team Obama in the first place. After all, the guy knows a thing or two about constitutional law.
posted by sour cream at 2:57 PM on October 8, 2013

It is one of several equally unconstitutional paths, next to not paying government debt and prioritizing payments. And it is the one path that will not only make him look like a hero for having saved the world economy (again!), but also for taking a suicide bomb out of the hands of the Republicans, who will be left foaming at the mouth in a self-destructing death spiral.

And we will be left wondering whether the whole thing wasn't planned by Team Obama in the first place. After all, the guy knows a thing or two about constitutional law.

The White House has repeatedly stated they do not have any authority under the 14th Amendment to do this. It is very, very unlikely, especially because fiat bonds would be very iffy and create the same problem as default with the markets.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:01 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

The logical outcome (if the Republicans don't cave in the last minute) will be Obama ignoring the debt ceiling and ordering the issuance of new debt.

I agree about the R's caving at the last moment, once the stock market drops a few hundred points and the interest rate spreads get to red line levels.

But if they don't, Obama can't issue new debt. People in this thread have explained again and again that this is a core separation of powers issue, and I believe that Obama sees it the same way. Won't happen.

Maybe we all get raptured instead.
posted by RedOrGreen at 3:02 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

And it is the one path that will not only make him look like a hero for having saved the world economy (again!), but also for taking a suicide bomb out of the hands of the Republicans, who will be left foaming at the mouth in a self-destructing death spiral.

The Republicans will immediately move to impeach Obama if he does this. I really don't see him doing it, not only because it immediately kills any hope he has of getting anything passed for the remainder of his term, like immigration reform, but also because I think Obama actually respects the institution of Congress, oddly enough.
posted by longdaysjourney at 3:02 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

I have nothing productive to add, but this debacle has me close to sickness with worry. I see no way for it to end well.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 3:04 PM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

I see a way for it to end well. The Rs, facing a mortal blow to their viability, pass a clean funding bill and raise the debt ceiling, then sit down in budget negotiations.

I think the way it WILL end is that in early November, having started some climactic economic events, the Rs cave and pay a price at the polls next year.
posted by bearwife at 3:08 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

I see a way for it to end well. The Rs, facing a mortal blow to their viability, pass a clean funding bill and raise the debt ceiling, then sit down in budget negotiations.

I think the way it WILL end is that in early November, having started some climactic economic events, the Rs cave and pay a price next year.

I think this is exactly right. We are going over. We are going to take some hurt. But the GOP will be mortally wounded by its own stupidity.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:12 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Just because we couldn't score enough runs, the Dodgers refuse to relinquish the title — and worse, they won't even discuss it.

Does being a Dodgers-hating (tautology alert!) Giants fan make me a blue-dog in this analogy?
posted by TwoWordReview at 3:12 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Seems appropriate:

"Though we know we should defeat you, we have not the time to meet you.
We will therefore pay you cash to go away."

And that is called paying the Dane-geld;
But we've proved it again and again,
That if once you have paid him the Dane-geld
You never get rid of the Dane.

The Obamacare demands are pure Danegeld. I can't decide if the Republicans are too stupid to realize that the Democrats can't negotiate on that issue or if they just feel backed into a corner and are too stupid to see a way out.
posted by Justinian at 3:12 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

Even if the debt ceiling were unconstitutional, who then authorizes debt?

Congress does, when it authorizes spending more money than we have. As Congress already has done.

It isn't quibbling.

"You are authorized to spend more money than you have" sure seems like authorizing debt to me, and to argue otherwise sure seems like quibbling to me. Like saying "An 'authorization for the use of military force' is unconstitutional because it does not contain the magic words 'I... DE... CLARE... WAR'".

And your blanket assertion that it is not quibbling, along with your blanket assertion that this or that is or is not constitutional or is or is not able to be brought before the court, as if you're the sole arbiter of what the Supreme Court is allowed to hear, doesn't particularly seem convincing to me. Especially in the face of your lecture about how it obviously can't be brought before the Court because the Court can't require the House of Representatives to vote on a clean CR. I mean really. Really? You thought I was suggesting that the president ask the Supreme Court to require that the House of Representatives hold a vote on a clean CR? Really? It's difficult for me to imagine the level of confusion needed to lead you to believe, in good faith, that I was suggesting that the president should ask the Supreme Court to require that the House of Representatives hold a vote on a clean CR.

And that happens all the time, not just in this thread. You misinterpret people in ridiculous ways, then you lecture them about how ridiculous they're being. They say "That's not what I'm saying", and you ignore it except to misinterpret them again in some other ridiculous way, over and over. So, go ahead I guess, lecture me about how "authorizing to spend more money than you have is not authorizing debt because the idea that (insert ridiculous misinterpretation here) is ridiculous." Just don't expect me to respond.
posted by Flunkie at 3:14 PM on October 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

Fuck if Ironmouth sez we're going over
/shoves fist in mouth to stifle panicked screams
posted by angrycat at 3:17 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Joey Michaels, re: Maranatha:

No idea if Bachmann is using it correctly or not, but basically it seems like her use to urge Jesus to come. Is this a common exclamation among apocalyptic Christians?

Yes, very much so, and you are interpreting her correctly.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 3:17 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

And your blanket assertion that it is not quibbling, along with your blanket assertion that this or that is or is not constitutional or is or is not able to be brought before the court, as if you're the sole arbiter of what the Supreme Court is allowed to hear, doesn't particularly seem convincing to me. Especially in the face of your lecture about how it obviously can't be brought before the Court because the Court can't require the House of Representatives to vote on a clean CR. I mean really. Really? You thought I was suggesting that the president ask the Supreme Court to require that the House of Representatives hold a vote on a clean CR? Really? It's difficult for me to imagine the level of confusion needed to lead you to believe, in good faith, that I was suggesting that the president should ask the Supreme Court to require that the House of Representatives hold a vote on a clean CR.

Please, if you have a way out of this for which you have a citable legal basis let us know. I'd love to see it. I apologize if I glossed over some things, but that's because if you search upthread, you'll see that all of this was fully discussed in far more detail upthread from yesterday.

Second, a certain Constitutional Law professor agrees with my assessment regarding the 14th Amendment. His opinion is the one that counts here.

More importantly, when you are striking out on brand new constitutional ideas like the idea that the executive may raise money without the express consent of the legislature, well I'm not in favor of that. A recession will hurt, yes. But the idea that the President may not raise money on his own is the single most important part of the Constitution. England had a giant civil war and cut the head off of their king to get that principle enshrined. And while I trust Barack Obama with the power of just printing money, I don't trust President Ted Cruz with that same power. Imagine the power you hand the executive in that position. Unlimited power. No, beating this recession is not worth that rule.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:23 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

There is simply no way the Court is going to rule that the President has unlimited powers to raise funds by issuing non-authorized debt.

No, of course not. But that's not this issue here. The issue is whether the President has limited powers to issue debt that Congress has already authorized by approving a budget. He isn't raising his own army or throwing Malia the world's most amazing birthday party. Congress has already determine how much must be spent and on what. The bind that the President faces is that he cannot legally not spend that money in those ways, but because of this asinine two-step we do with the debt ceiling, he cannot issue new debt. But he cannot follow both laws--the budget and the debt ceiling. Admittedly, I am no lawyer, but those who make the case that given this conflict Obama must make a choice between which law to break have a point. And since the latest budget came after the most recent debt ceiling passed, continuing to do what must be done to follow that budget has the virtue of obeying Congress's most recent instructions regarding US fiscal policy.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 3:25 PM on October 8, 2013 [10 favorites]

I think this is exactly right. We are going over. We are going to take some hurt. But the GOP will be mortally wounded by its own stupidity.

I really hope that you're right on that last point. Because if the Dems get the blame for this in 2016 against a bona fide crazy person like Cruz or Paul and lose the Senate, the country and the world are absolutely fucked. Like, poor people dying in the streets/no glaciers by 2050/New Jim Crow fucked.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:27 PM on October 8, 2013 [9 favorites]

Fuck if Ironmouth sez we're going over
/shoves fist in mouth to stifle panicked screams

it is hard to tell. but right now, Boehner sees the only way the GOP exists is if it purges itself, I guess. Because, baby when that first 500-point Dow drop hits, you will see GOPers head for the exits. Like quitting the party. That bad.

This is a big, big, historical deal.

The other thing is it will get better. We've had 15 years of the Republican Party in slow-motion self-destruction. This will end. Probably with a splintered right.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:27 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Sure seems like there's some ambiguity in the 14th Amendment. Enough ambiguity that some legal scholars, and even some politicians (like Clinton) have said, sure, it's at least worth a shot to push it. Tough times call for tough leaders. If we do go over, then Obama should hold a primetime speech from his desk at the Oval Office, explain that he's going to use an executive order or whatever to keep issuing payments, and that the global economy is not going to crater on his watch because of some knuckleheads in Congress. He can explain that Congress put him in the position of having to break one of a number of laws, and that the law he is breaking is the one that will save the world's financial order. If the Republicans in Congress choose to impeach him for that instead of raising the debt ceiling, then that will be on their heads, not his. It's what Lincoln would have done. Who gives a shit if some Rs want to impeach him. In times of crisis, people will be clamoring for strong leadership. "I don't know guys, this might not be legal" would not go down well. "I'm not sure what is legal here so eff it, I'm doing this thing and full speed ahead, are you with me, America?" is better.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 3:27 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

I think this is exactly right. We are going over. We are going to take some hurt. But the GOP will be mortally wounded by its own stupidity.

Won't it be difficult for Lew and Obama to explain why they can't prioritize which payments to make rather than just defaulting randomly based on first-in-first-out? It isn't completely clear that Obama won't get hurt by this as well, but I guess I agree that the GOP will take the brunt of it.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:28 PM on October 8, 2013

Fuck if Ironmouth sez we're going over
/shoves fist in mouth to stifle panicked screams

He's good at a lot of things but he does not exactly have a perfect track record with political predictions. He and I agreed the shutdown wasn't even going to happen, for example. I think this gets worked out last minute. Boehner is not totally insane.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:28 PM on October 8, 2013

I like how I'm now being lectured that my assertions about the 14th Amendment, which I never in fact mentioned and which you can't possibly have truly thought I was talking about, are ridiculous.

That is all. I'm done.
posted by Flunkie at 3:29 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

If I had a nickel for every time somebody on MeFi predicted the demise of the Republican party, I'd be George Soros. Don't get me wrong, I hope one of you will one day be right, I'm just not holding my breath.
posted by entropicamericana at 3:30 PM on October 8, 2013 [14 favorites]

Maybe we're all done.
posted by Golden Eternity at 3:30 PM on October 8, 2013

Boehner is not totally insane.

He is, however, a coward who panders to the insane, and cares very little about how anyone else might be affected by it.
posted by Artw at 3:31 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

I think the thing that convinces me we're going over the brink is the talk of how rational Boehner is. History is so full of rational men (and women) who piloted the boat over the waterfall.
posted by honestcoyote at 3:32 PM on October 8, 2013 [8 favorites]

The issue is whether the President has limited powers to issue debt that Congress has already authorized by approving a budget.

Except there is not a single piece of case law showing that and it defies logic. So for 200 years, congress passed laws authorizing debt. Then in 1978, the Gephardt Rule came in and an actual rule was passed which included a rule on appropriations bills--that when an appropriation bill was passed the debt limit was raised for exactly that amount. And then the GOP repealed it upon gaining power in 1995. So the House has acted like the debt ceiling is a real thing and basically set the legal framework for the debate. And the idea is that a Roberts court is going to rule somehow that the actual words of the amendment actually mean that a president may issue debt on his own say so?

That is not going to happen. Ever. That is my opinion. They will not give this to Obama. Nor will Obama argue this. He's already said its out. So it isn't getting done. And he is 100% right to say that.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:33 PM on October 8, 2013

He is, however, a coward who panders to the insane, and cares very little about how anyone else might be affected by it.

He cares about maintaining the strength of the Republican party and his personal power as a politician. Both of these things are damaged too seriously by default to allow it to happen.

And yeah, he cares about his country. Not all Republicans are monsters.
posted by Drinky Die at 3:35 PM on October 8, 2013

It seems like the judicial branch is the correct place to resolve the unpatched vulnerability that allows the legislative branch to force the executive branch into breaking a law. I agree that there are serious questions about who could bring such a case, who would have standing, etc., but there has to be a way for two branches locked in a constitutional crisis to say "yo, a little help over here?"
posted by tonycpsu at 3:36 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

He's good at a lot of things but he does not exactly have a perfect track record with political predictions. He and I agreed the shutdown wasn't even going to happen, for example. I think this gets worked out last minute. Boehner is not totally insane.

I hope my guess is wrong. There is an alternative. Boehner falls on his sword on the debt ceiling, passes it and lets the shutdown go on. Then he tells the Rump, go ahead, make my day. Who stands up against him? Paul Ryan? The guy is a lightweight, let's be honest. There's no one in that caucus that can do this better than Boehner? Cantor would be eaten alive by the Rump.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:37 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

You know, as a lay observer, it kills me that when Bush wanted to go to war with a country that had no attacked us and posed no threat, then shred the Geneva Conventions to indefinitely detain and torture people, he had no trouble getting his top advisors to declare that was legally A-OK and Congress just rolled over and let it happen. But when the notion is floated that maybe Obama could do something that would let him spend the money Congress has told him to spend, and also save the global economy from disaster, well, OH NOES we are bound by the law and that would be an impeachable offense!!! Goddammit I wish I lived in a sane country.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 3:38 PM on October 8, 2013 [35 favorites]

How about this depressing possibility - Obama and the democrats cave. Not as in "defund ACA", but as in delay by a year. That's what's under discussion right now. This is what I'm hearing through some back channels that have been reliable in the past.

Apparently, tremendous - TREMENDOUS - pressure is being brought to bear on Obama, from all sorts of quarters, including leading financial and Wall Street types. The argument? As follows: the catastrophe must be avoided at all costs. Administration's reply - go talk to the Republicans, explain, bring the pressure to bear on them, as it is they who are the root cause of this. Push back on that: yes, but that's irrelevant, there are two parties who can resolve this, Obama by caving, or Tea Party by caving; we won't talk to the tea bags, because they are stark raving crazy and actually don't mind the utter destruction that will follow; there is no point in talking to crazy people - so that leaves YOU: sorry, but there is no choice, when there is only one party that is amenable, then that's the one that will receive the full pressure, regardless of who is responsible, who is guilty etc. "Mr. President, if you love your country, you will do the lesser evil. Fold. Yes, even it it means a personal blow to all you hold dear. We are asking you - demanding really - you fall on your sword".

Obama will eventually fall on his sword. That's the scuttlebutt. The only question is how badly - obviously it will have to be portrayed as a "compromise" so no defunding, and no clean CR, but a year's delay. In practical terms, of course, this is death - you have just given in, and there is no stopping now. But the alternative would be worse, because the other driver has his foot tied to the gas and we're going over the cliff.

Wall Street types consolation: "You're being the hero here, Mr. President, even if the public doesn't know the depth of your sacrifice. We salute you." Probably they'll mention his name in a teary toast at at least two - or even three - Thanksgivings.

We'll see. I guess it will get resolved - one way or another. Even if it's the most depressing one. Defeated, because the other party is just too crazy and irresponsible - the more desperate one wins.
posted by VikingSword at 3:38 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Obama will eventually fall on his sword. That's the scuttlebutt. The only question is how badly

XL and repeal of medical device tax, with the revenue to be made up by other taxation.
posted by Ironmouth at 3:40 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

i fully expect to be blasted for this and i don't blame you a bit for doing so, as i'm pretty tempted to blast myself for saying it and haven't the slightest intention of defending this crazy idea

but there IS a 3rd option

when debt ceiling day comes and the president is unable to do anything without violating the constitution, he and biden resign saying they would rather not serve than violate the constitution and boehner can be president

then let HIM figure out how to clean up his mess with an uncooperative democratic majority in the senate

yes, it sucks - yes, there's 1001 reasons why it shouldn't be done - yes, it would be a catastrophe for the country - and yes, i am so fucking wrong for saying it

but wouldn't it serve those sons-of-bitches right?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:47 PM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

wouldn't it serve them right . . . by doing exactly what they want? get rid of obama and place a republican in the white house?

the old win by losing tactic. clever.
posted by (Arsenio) Hall and (Warren) Oates at 3:48 PM on October 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

And yeah, he cares about his country.

Recent events would suggest he has a very funny way of showing it.

Not all Republicans are monsters.

Give it another round of primaries.
posted by Artw at 3:51 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

but let me ask a question - is it actually unconstitutional for the president to pay as he goes, with the money he has been given by congress? - his defense - "i'm doing the best i can with what congress has authorized"

how can this be unconstitutional?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:53 PM on October 8, 2013

How utterly depressing such a surrender would be. Obama could live with the device tax repeal but a year's delay would essentially render him and the executive branch powerless for the remainder of his term as well as being the probable death of the ACA.
posted by honestcoyote at 3:53 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

Obama can't cave.
posted by vibrotronica at 3:55 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Beltway shutdow convoy is off. Its leader has admitted the entire thing was a hoax.
posted by humanfont at 3:55 PM on October 8, 2013 [8 favorites]

"but basically it seems like her use to urge Jesus to come."

try tickling his balls
posted by klangklangston at 3:58 PM on October 8, 2013 [10 favorites]

Obama won't cave. Never doubt the President looking for his legacy.
posted by cmfletcher at 3:59 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Obama will eventually fall on his sword. That's the scuttlebutt. The only question is how badly

...and then in six weeks, we can repeat this all again. And again six weeks after that... and by the end of Obama's turn the humans and pigs, as it were, will be indistinguishable from each other.

If you give control over to the crazy people, you will never, never get it back. Obama will go down in history as less Abraham Lincoln and more James Buchanan, less Churchill and more Chamberlain. America will be broken and broken badly.

It is never the right choice (if I may paraphrase a better wit than mine) to give alcohol and car keys to teenage boys.

No, the current far right doesn't believe in objective reality. At some point, if Obama caves, there will come a time when they finally do demand something so insane, so completely damaging in exchange for not destroying the economy that destroying the economy will be the better of the two choices. This has to be stopped and stopped here.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:59 PM on October 8, 2013 [28 favorites]

How about this depressing possibility - Obama and the democrats cave. Not as in "defund ACA", but as in delay by a year. That's what's under discussion right now. This is what I'm hearing through some back channels that have been reliable in the past.

If Obama caves, then we're still fucked, because the bomb hasn't been defused. At that point, any single point in the top executive or legislative levels of government can overturn any law it doesn't like by threatening to default, until inevitably at some point we default anyway.

I hope to hell your sources are wrong, because if Obama wants to make pretty much the entirety of US law to be subject to madmen for the foreseeable future, then we are truly doomed.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:59 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

I mean, to some extent Obama has been caving. This particular standoff is being billed as the moment of truth.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:01 PM on October 8, 2013

I can't see it happening. He's gotta know that if he caves and delays ACA for a year, the Rs are that much more emboldened to hold out again then.
posted by Rykey at 4:02 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

I don't think Obama can give up even the device tax. If he does, it is open season every time we reach the debt limit from now until the end of his presidency. It would embolden the Republicans to ask for much more next time, and it would kill any and all credibility Obama would have in such standoffs.

No. He cannot agree to any Republican demands that put conditions on raising the debt limit. And I hope that if he does, Harry Reid has enough sense to save Obama from himself by refusing to bring to the Senate floor anything other than a clean debt bill.
posted by Jonathan Livengood at 4:03 PM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

Obama said as much in a recent speech -- trying to find the text, but it was basically "if we give in, does anyone really believe we won't be here again in three months?"
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:04 PM on October 8, 2013

If you believe that corporations have any say in the government, you must also believe there is no way anyone will delay ACA for a year. We got ACA because it's what all but the Tea Party types wanted (of all the options that were realistically on the table then).

After billions of dollars have been invested, to turn back now but still, probably have to still pay for the medical needs of the sick, previously uninsurable folk (because that's what a delay would mean -- the policies have already been sold to those who have successfully completed the exchange) would mean the end of centrist wing of the Democratic party, and there are way too many of them for that to happen.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 4:04 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Obama will eventually fall on his sword. That's the scuttlebutt. The only question is how badly

XL and repeal of medical device tax, with the revenue to be made up by other taxation.

I realize we're in the starry realm of prognostication now, but Obama almost certainly won't do that. The Tea Party is betting that he will, of course; that's what this comes down to. But he must not.

Those modifications to the law should have been made in Congress. That's exactly what the legislative branch's procedures and institutional design are for. For Obama to yield in that way would be an admission that (bad-faith, no less!) extortion actually works in modern politics. It's so profoundly anti-Democratic that I cannot imagine the political system surviving it. What reason would Republicans have to play by any rules after that point?

Obama "falling on his sword" would boil down to conceding the legitimacy of the US political system. I guess it's possible, but it seems far less likely than a Republican cave, which would just make the Tea Party look stupid rather than sabotaging the country itself.
posted by clockzero at 4:05 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

Wouldn't XL also be an important Obama legacy thing? As in, well thought we were fucked before, but thanks to an XL deal, well, let's break out the heroin and dance naked in the streets because: fucked.
posted by angrycat at 4:06 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

There will be zero ACA delay. He will just agree to switch revenue sources. That would be about it. It means nothing.

There will be no delay.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:07 PM on October 8, 2013

well, i guess my point, in as much as i had one, is that either obama gives in all the way or he doesn't give in at all

i don't think he's got a middle ground here
posted by pyramid termite at 4:07 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Wouldn't XL also be an important Obama legacy thing?

No. He hasn't been against it.
posted by Ironmouth at 4:09 PM on October 8, 2013

"It seems like the judicial branch is the correct place to resolve the unpatched vulnerability that allows the legislative branch to force the executive branch into breaking a law. I agree that there are serious questions about who could bring such a case, who would have standing, etc., but there has to be a way for two branches locked in a constitutional crisis to say "yo, a little help over here?""

It's funny (boo-hoo, not ha-ha) how much of the SCOTUS hail mary requires not having five goddamn lunatics on the bench. I would not bet against them telling Obama to fix this by negotiating with the loons in Congress.
posted by klangklangston at 4:09 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

H.R. 807, the “Full Faith and Credit Act,” passed the House of Representatives on May 9, 2013 by a vote of 221 to 207. There has been no action in the Senate."

That looks an awful lot like it was an attempt at laying groundwork for later holding out on the debt ceiling.

If Boehner refuses to give in, perhaps the Dems have a backup plan to pass this in the Senate and go through an orderly default. Obama could offer to convene a bipartisan commission to make decisions along with Bernanke and the Treasury on which bills not to pay.
posted by Golden Eternity at 4:10 PM on October 8, 2013

There will be zero ACA delay. He will just agree to switch revenue sources. That would be about it. It means nothing.

There will be no delay.

The hell that means nothing, Ironmouth. Agreeing to switch revenue sources when the legislation was under consideration or up for debate in the Senate or House would have been one thing. Agreeing, outside of any governmental process, on extortionate terms, to a modification of a duly passed law would not mean nothing and you know that. This is absolutely not how things are supposed to work. This is madness.
posted by clockzero at 4:12 PM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

Joey Michaels: " Surely they would respond like a doomsday cult when their predicted end of the world date didn't pan out - justifying why they were really right all along in the face of insurmountable evidence that they couldn't have been more wrong."

Given that this is what they've been doing for a number of years now, I don't see why that would change now.

Ironmouth: "The markets will tank--because each workaround will send the same message--the U.S. cannot pay its bills. And the Platinum coin is gimmicky and politically unstable."

They would slide, not tank. They will tank if we end up defaulting on our debt because it will utterly fuck holders of short term Treasury debt, which are many, and in all sectors of the economy. The necessity of invoking one of the quasi-legal options would send a very clear message that the political system in this country is irrevocably broken (at least in the short term), but the invocation would prevent immediate massive upheaval. It would look more like the slow-mo bank runs of 2007 and 2008 than Black Friday.

On a completely different part of the topic, that Bartlett piece is pretty interesting. I'm not sure why the opinion seems to be that Social Security benefits are in any danger, though. The trust fund has more than enough securities to pay benefits for a good while even in a debt-ceiling-constrained world. The securities in the trust funds are nonmarketable, but do count toward the debt limit. If securities from the trust fund are redeemed, Treasury frees up exactly that amount of borrowing capacity and could thus borrow to pay for the redemption.

The only problem is that we can't issue any new securities to them, so WTF do we do with the funds coming in from FICA?

Lastly, I think anyone who says the downside risk of default is a mere recession is being Pollyannish. It'll make the last freeze look like child's play. It will last longer, and the government will lack the borrowing authority to do anything about it. The Fed might be able to ease the pain a little, but only a little.
posted by wierdo at 4:13 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

there are two parties who can resolve this, Obama by caving, or Tea Party by caving; we won't talk to the tea bags, because they are stark raving crazy and actually don't mind the utter destruction that will follow; there is no point in talking to crazy people - so that leaves YOU

Unless you're posing this as what these hypothetical Wall Street types are saying but don't actually believe, this isn't based in reality. The Tea Party is in all likelihood not a majority of the House GOP, and they're certainly not a majority of the House itself. There are plenty of non-crazy House GOP members. If said hypothetical Wall Street types don't know this, then they're fucking morons.

Now, there is a question as to how craven the relatively-sane "moderates" are, electorally speaking, but the balance of the speculation puts enough of them on the side of reason to pass a CR if it comes down to 11:30pm on the 16th.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:14 PM on October 8, 2013

So, what will actually happen when we go over the debt cliff? All people say is that it's going to be horrible and catastrophic. Does anyone have any specifics about what's going to happen?
posted by nooneyouknow at 4:15 PM on October 8, 2013

The hell that means nothing, Ironmouth. Agreeing to switch revenue sources when the legislation was under consideration or up for debate in the Senate or House would have been one thing. Agreeing, outside of any governmental process, on extortionate terms, to a modification of a duly passed law would not mean nothing and you know that. This is absolutely not how things are supposed to work. This is madness.

I think it might be okay to give something up to end this as long as it is 100% clear it was not worth the effort it took them to get the concession and the TP types are furious and convinced they lost.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:16 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

"Asked about Obama saying he would be open to a potential short-term spending bill and debt limit increase that might allow the parties time to discuss a broader budget deal, Boehner bristled. "What the president said today was, if there is unconditional surrender by Republicans, he'll sit down and talk to us. That's not the way our government works," he said.
posted by klangklangston at 4:18 PM on October 8, 2013

Scuttlebutt among whom, Vikingsword? "Top men"?
posted by Justinian at 4:18 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

My editorial comment: o_0 "That's not how our government works! It works when we demand unconditional surrender or we'll destroy the government!"
posted by klangklangston at 4:19 PM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

Why Are We Talking About the Debt Ceiling Crisis As If It's Normal Politics?

How do you get across how insurrectionary this is? Raising the debt ceiling isn't a concession from Republicans that deserves a corresponding concession from Democrats. It's the financial equivalent of a nuclear bomb: both sides will go up in smoke if it's triggered. Ditto for the government shutdown. And ditto again for the piecemeal spending bills, which are basically a way for Republicans to fund only the parts of government they like but not anything else.

You can't govern a country this way. You can't allow a minority party to make relentless demands not through the political system, but by threatening Armageddon if they don't get what they want. It's not what the Constitution intended; it's not something any president could countenance; and it's reckless almost beyond imagining.

And most important of all, it's not something that should get written about as if it's just a modest escalation of normal political disagreements. It's not normal. At all. But how do you get this across? How do you get across just how non-normal it is that we're even talking about it?

posted by zombieflanders at 4:19 PM on October 8, 2013 [23 favorites]

Who are these mysterious figures bringing "tremendous pressure" on the Leader of the Free World?
posted by vibrotronica at 4:19 PM on October 8, 2013

So, what will actually happen when we go over the debt cliff? All people say is that it's going to be horrible and catastrophic. Does anyone have any specifics about what's going to happen?

Nobody knows because it's never happened because it's the economic equivalent of setting off a nuke. Only one other developed country has a debt ceiling--Denmark--and it's too small to have any meaningful effect on the world economy (and is so high as to be meaningless anyway).

In any event, there's a link in the OP that describes the potential effects, and there's a number of sources linked in this thread you could search through recent archives to find out more. Try Ezra Klein/Wonkblog and/or Matthew Yglesias, for starters.
posted by zombieflanders at 4:22 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

The Shutdown in 10 Infuriating Sentences.
posted by George_Spiggott at 4:25 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

And this is how you play politics.

Paul Ryan is one clever motherfucker. Keep low and don't say a word, write an OpEd in the WSJ that makes you appear totally reasonable (even though you are a fucking lunatic), come out as the only non-crazy person in the joint and the true power broker in the house.

Boehner must be so angry right now...
posted by lattiboy at 4:29 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

Oh, and "all it takes is leadership" couldn't be more of a slap across Boehner's dumb, orange face.
posted by lattiboy at 4:30 PM on October 8, 2013

The first comment on the WSJ page is "Paul RHINO?"
posted by Going To Maine at 4:33 PM on October 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

Good god almighty, my bullshit needle won't come down after reading that op-ed.

I really wonder how on earth anyone can take Paul Ryan seriously. He basically just repeated the same lies he was spouting off in his debates with Biden in the last election. Hell, he even used some of the same bad math.

What a fucking moron.
posted by daq at 4:38 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

nooneyouknow: "So, what will actually happen when we go over the debt cliff? All people say is that it's going to be horrible and catastrophic. Does anyone have any specifics about what's going to happen?"

Probably nothing major until the $40 or $60 billion (I forget which) in debt payments come due at the end of the month. Before that it will just be the inability to fund government programs. As I said earlier, I think there is in fact a way to keep Social Security checks coming for a while, at least as long as the market is still willing to buy US government debt at some price.

If Congress passed a prioritization bill, I suspect it would be continue to be possible to access the financial markets. If not, who the hell knows?
posted by wierdo at 4:39 PM on October 8, 2013

What the fuck Paul Ryan you mealy mouthed, marathon-time-lying, failed-VP-candidate, entitled, sleepy-eyed, stupid-photo-posing, worst-Public-Enemy fan ever? Where did any of that come from? When did this become about your weak-ass, elder-starving plan from a few years ago?

Arghdfkgjh. I'm genuinely going to vomit now.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:40 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

Ryan's editorial only seems reasonable if you ignore all the dog whistles.
posted by wierdo at 4:40 PM on October 8, 2013

Aww he thinks he can grow up to be President some day.
posted by jason_steakums at 4:42 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

God, I wish I could ignore dog-whistles. My blood pressure would stay in the healthy ranges for my age. I think I just got some more gray hairs. I'm only 37, dammit.
posted by daq at 4:43 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Oh hey! BirdsRightsActivist has some useful things to say about this:

On the congress: i could be congress: "bread bread bread braed bread bread bread bread bred bread bread bread bread bread bread bread bread bread and ham"

On the shutdown: Today I shut down a government. I sit in a mailbox. #NoMoveUntilStopGiveBreadSquirrel

On us right now: i am inside of a newspaper.
posted by Going To Maine at 4:44 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Who are these mysterious figures bringing "tremendous pressure" on the Leader of the Free World?

These types of mysterious figures:

Wall Street CEOs meet with Obama, warn of harm from debt-limit battle

Scuttlebutt among whom, Vikingsword? "Top men"?

I was pretty conflicted as to whether to post this or not, because obviously any time you mention "sources" without naming them, you get that reaction. But what if the condition of the info is not revealing sources? An old dilemma, which actual journalists often wrestle with - and often decide the better course is not to air such info. I thought this was pretty astonishing, and so in the end I decided to post. Your response made me regret it. Therefore: my apologies, please disregard that post. I will not make this mistake in the future. Speculate away fwiw, without this 'scuttlebutt' contribution.
posted by VikingSword at 4:46 PM on October 8, 2013

Oh, please. Ryan's piece is completely wonky. It makes the eyes cross. It has no political appeal whatever to anyone who isn't a total insider. And an easy answer to every proposal he makes is the one Barack Obama has been making -- happy to talk about the budget when the government is re-opened and debt ceiling is raised.

I am also very positive this President is resolute. This course of events is deadly for the Rs, but the President has learned his lesson about trying to meet them part of the way. From here on out they need to do the right thing or take the political consequences.
posted by bearwife at 4:46 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

VikingSword, obviously you don't have to name names. But some context would be nice. Are we talking financial types? Hill staffers? Journalists? That sort of thing is what I mean.
posted by Justinian at 4:50 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

To be clear: I do not find Ryan's bullshit reasonable at all, but compared to the rhetoric that's been going on the last few weeks.... horrible little pundits will eat it up and call Ryan "the adult in the room" or a "voice of compromise" because mediocrity rules the land and the press is broken.
posted by lattiboy at 4:50 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

I don't think Obama can give up even the device tax. If he does, it is open season every time we reach the debt limit from now until the end of his presidency. It would embolden the Republicans to ask for much more next time, and it would kill any and all credibility Obama would have in such standoffs.

No. He cannot agree to any Republican demands that put conditions on raising the debt limit.

By the end of this post, I was standing up, saluting and singing the national anthem. And then I remembered that Obama already did that in the past with sequestration, so I sat down and had a tea.
posted by VikingSword at 4:51 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Did I just read an op-ed about how to end this shutdown that didn't mention Obamacare? Well Paul, go ahead and ask the tea party how they will feel about leaving that off the table.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:51 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

I'm about ready to take to the streets. Where is occupy right now? Probably out talking about how Obama is a tool of Wall Street or something similarly useless.
posted by empath at 4:55 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Probably off doing something useless like whining about what the Republicans are doing on an online message board.
posted by Drinky Die at 4:57 PM on October 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

Justinian, to be clear, I wasn't told what Obama's decision is, or what his thinking is, just what certain wall street types are telling him privately and their arguments and their impressions of what is going to happen (as transmitted by one aide to one exec). What will actually happen, who knows - I suspect nobody.
posted by VikingSword at 4:58 PM on October 8, 2013

From VikingSword's link:

But speaking to reporters outside the White House, Blankfein backed Obama's position that Republicans should not be withholding an increase in the nation's $16.7 trillion debt limit as part of negotiations over spending and the new healthcare law.

Doesn't sound like he's asking for a Roman sword-throwing-self-on to me.
posted by vibrotronica at 4:59 PM on October 8, 2013

Gotcha, VS.

Personally, I'm not sure "you've got to give in to the crazies or they will continue to be crazy" is a persuasive argument. They'll just come back with more crazy next time.
posted by Justinian at 5:00 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

It's already in the OP, but I encourage you to browse crayz's (eponysterical) post and the ensuing discussion from the last time we almost breached the debt ceiling in 2011. Same bullshit (Republicans tying enactment of their platform to the debt ceiling), same speculation and angst, and the resolution of the situation discussed in real time.

(Only problem: Obama is far more resolute at this point, and the House GOP more polarized.)
posted by Rhaomi at 5:01 PM on October 8, 2013

Doesn't sound like he's asking for a Roman sword-throwing-self-on to me.

In public. How would that look if he publicly asked the prez to cave? This way it looks all nice and reasonable. In private, it's a different matter, alas.
posted by VikingSword at 5:01 PM on October 8, 2013

Where is occupy right now?

planning their next occupation of a public park for a few hours
posted by pyramid termite at 5:02 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

I've been listening to a podcast about the English civil war, and it's remarkable now similar in both tone and the actual issues at hand the current crisis is. If we are not careful, we are heading to a coup. The big corporations and the military will not allow the world economy to collapse, and if it's not resolved democratically, it will be resolved through other means.

I think I'm listening to the same podcast - Mike Duncan's, right? - and it has done nothing for my peace of mind.

That said, I'm going to go listen to it while I do the dishes.
posted by Rustic Etruscan at 5:02 PM on October 8, 2013

But does Blankfein have much clout with the Tea Party folks? If you want to go the ultra-paranoid route, you'd hypothesize that Blankfein is putting on a show while suspecting that the TPers are yahoos who don't give tuppence for anything he might say. Obama, on the other hand, is a reasonable person who will accept Blankfein's expertise.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:03 PM on October 8, 2013

"You can litigate these policy issues, you can relitigate these policy issues in a political forum, but you shouldn’t use the threat of causing the U.S. to fail on its obligations to repay the debt as a cudgel," Blankfein said after the noontime meeting.

Seems like Blankfein needs to go back and talk with Boehner again. He's just preaching to the choir at the White House. Could Obama offer to delay government funding of ACA for six months and have Wall Street agree to fund it in the mean time, without actually delaying its implementation?

I'm about ready to take to the streets. Where is occupy right now? Probably out talking about how Obama is a tool of Wall Street or something similarly useless.

Yeah. We need a gang of moderates to occupy the local governments, the PTA's, and whatever. Take a page from the Tea Party's playbook. I would prefer the anarchists remain in the public parks for the time being,however.
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:09 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

If there were any truth in all their talk about entrepreneurship and small business, opposing the ACA is the last thing the Rs would do. In recent decades the most important barrier to starting a business has become the near impossibility of getting health coverage for yourself and your first few tens of employees. But they talk about small business the way they talk about the family farm. Just as the latter is code for "big agribusiness and fuck the hayseeds" the former is code for big corporations.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:09 PM on October 8, 2013 [15 favorites]

Where is occupy right now?

Seeing the Tea Party on the verge of destroying America's financial system and thinking "hmm, maybe they aren't such bad guys after all".
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:17 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

Our security guy just came by on one of his rounds. Friendly small-town guy, do-anything-for-you type. We talk all the time at work, go out for beers, get along well, despite my social-democrat leanings and his FOX/Beck echo chamber tendencies. He's pretty consistently parroted the "I work hard, only for the government to steal from me to give bums and immigrants handouts" and "Obama's a threat to our freedom!" lines, so I thought I knew what he was going to say when our conversation turned to the current budget crisis.

Instead, he said that it absolutely disgusted him that the shutdown was happening, that people were being furloughed and denied services, that Congress was even considering not raising the debt ceiling to pay for what it already bought. He didn't parrot the talking points about this being Obama's or the Dems' fault, which I know he would have if he was the least bit inclined to believe them. The last thing he said before moving on was, "We've stayed together as a country for over 200 years, and if these idiots let us fall apart over something they've had this long to work out, they deserve to be fired."

Which is about as close as he's ever gonna get to faulting the far right. Shit just got real.
posted by Rykey at 5:18 PM on October 8, 2013 [19 favorites]

If there were any truth in all their talk about entrepreneurship and small business, opposing the ACA is the last thing the Rs would do.

A common Economics Theory mistake: assuming that certain parties are 'rational actors'. A large percentage of "entrepreneurs and small businessmen" are not (have you SPOKEN to the owner of a mom-and-pop hardware store in the era of Home Depot?) and not even all of the irrational actors are standing behind the TeaParty.
posted by oneswellfoop at 5:24 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Some tea party congressmen find signs of political backlash at home
posted by Golden Eternity at 5:31 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

oneswellfoop, I'm not talking about extant small business people but potential ones. The kind of skilled people who could translate their abilities from employee to entrepreneur status are exactly the ones terrified to: people in the middle of life with good resumes and contacts -- and with children and increasing personal healthcare risks. So they don't.
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:32 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

(Belatedly I realize that you're not disagreeing.)
posted by George_Spiggott at 5:34 PM on October 8, 2013

Hmm you know this has to be some Cuban Cruise Missile type shit, with like people yelling at Obama he's got to do X and other people yelling him to do Y. I say, let him have an emergency smoke if he wants it.

The president I believe in won't use the debt ceiling to make deals about the Keystone Pipeline or that would result in a diminishment of the effectiveness of the ACA. I suppose if I'm wrong, it will get me and about a zillion whatever leftists motivated to do things even if it means standing next to somebody who is doing that weird thing with their hands.
posted by angrycat at 5:41 PM on October 8, 2013

Also, Luther the Anger Translator needs to step up. I want new levels of rage bursting out of that beautiful bald head.
posted by angrycat at 5:45 PM on October 8, 2013 [7 favorites]

Interesting.

President Obama Holds Off-The-Record Meeting With Conservative Journalists

The group, according to a source familiar with the meeting, included Wall Street Journal editorial page editor Paul Gigot, National Review Washington editor Robert Costa, Washington Examiner columnist Byron York, syndicated columnist Kathleen Parker and Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer.

The meeting took place shortly after Obama held a White House press conference in the briefing room Tuesday afternoon. For over an hour, Obama fielded questions from White House reporters, with the focus on the government shutdown and looming debt default. Later, he met with the conservative journalists for 90 minutes in the Roosevelt Room.

Would love to be a fly on the wall for that one.
posted by Drinky Die at 5:50 PM on October 8, 2013 [13 favorites]

The meeting took place shortly after Obama held a White House press conference in the briefing room Tuesday afternoon. For over an hour, Obama fielded questions from White House reporters, with the focus on the government shutdown and looming debt default. Later, he met with the conservative journalists for 90 minutes in the Roosevelt Room.

So, where's the 90 minutes for liberal journalists, from Mother Jones, the Nation etc.? Nobody gives a fuck about liberal journalists? But conservative journalists are so important Obama needs to take 90 minutes out of his day to suck their cocks? I hope one of them leaves a mint on the pillow for Obama after they're all through writing their stuff.
posted by VikingSword at 5:54 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

The article makes the point that Obama has met in private with different groups of journalists at different times - we shouldn't assume that liberals haven't gotten this treatment in the past. But frankly, given that the Democrats and Republicans are highly polarized on this issue, with each group getting the news from within their own bubbles, it makes sense to go to the opposition journalists. Maybe you can convince the WSJ to not give Paul Ryan any more op-ed space, or get Charles Krauthammer to ask the tea party to tone it down. Of course, it's also possible that Fox could use news about the private meeting to try and paint these journalists as compromised. Seems unlikely, though.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:00 PM on October 8, 2013

VikingSword: " Nobody gives a fuck about liberal journalists?"

Game theory, dude. Like they said on the radio this morning,

So, in the classic game of chicken, what experts actually suggest is that the first thing you would do is to grab your own steering wheel and throw it out of the car, because you signal to your opponent, look, even if I wanted to swerve at this point, I wouldn't be able to do it. And Blackstone connects this idea with the current standoff in Washington.

This coddling of the conservative press is part of a deliberate effort to signal as best we can that we've thrown the steering wheel out of the car. Mother Jones is not driving the other car.
posted by The White Hat at 6:01 PM on October 8, 2013 [13 favorites]

Liberals got 60 minutes of on the record verbal ass kicking of the Republicans. I think what he was likely trying to do with this meeting was explain face to face to some people with a voice mainstream Republicans might listen to why he is doing what he is doing and why it is inevitably going to end poorly for Republicans if they don't end the shutdown. You can do a lot of straight talk when you are off the record. It's a good idea to let them know the public stuff isn't just a negotiating act.

If some columns start popping up from the attending folks suggesting some minor concessions the President "might" be willing to agree to, moderate Republicans should listen.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:01 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

it's not something that should get written about as if it's just a modest escalation of normal political disagreements. It's not normal.

i was having a discussion with a wingnut on twitter about this. he claimed it was an tried and true political tactic, used for two centuries. o-O
posted by quonsar II: smock fishpants and the temple of foon at 6:03 PM on October 8, 2013

Apparently, tremendous - TREMENDOUS - pressure is being brought to bear on Obama, from all sorts of quarters, including leading financial and Wall Street types. The argument? As follows: the catastrophe must be avoided at all costs. Administration's reply - go talk to the Republicans, explain, bring the pressure to bear on them, as it is they who are the root cause of this. Push back on that: yes, but that's irrelevant, there are two parties who can resolve this, Obama by caving, or Tea Party by caving; we won't talk to the tea bags, because they are stark raving crazy and actually don't mind the utter destruction that will follow; there is no point in talking to crazy people - so that leaves YOU: sorry, but there is no choice, when there is only one party that is amenable, then that's the one that will receive the full pressure, regardless of who is responsible, who is guilty etc. "Mr. President, if you love your country, you will do the lesser evil. Fold. Yes, even it it means a personal blow to all you hold dear. We are asking you - demanding really - you fall on your sword".

But the Tea Party wouldn't exist if not for the machinations of wealthy donors. So if what you're saying is true, VikingSword, and I think it sounds totally plausible, what we're actually seeing in this mess is the articulation of a serious fault line amongst the extremely wealthy and their business interests. What's good for the coalition of wealth behind the Tea Party is very bad for Wall Street. What crucial financial positioning differentiates these two groups from one another, I wonder?
posted by clockzero at 6:06 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

needs to take 90 minutes out of his day to suck their cocks?

Cut it out.
posted by cortex at 6:06 PM on October 8, 2013 [32 favorites]

But the Tea Party wouldn't exist if not for the machinations of wealthy donors. So if what you're saying is true, VikingSword, and I think it sounds totally plausible, what we're actually seeing in this mess is the articulation of a serious fault line amongst the extremely wealthy and their business interests.

This would hardly be the first time in history that a movement got away from its backers. As Prime Minister Caine once put it, You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!
posted by Etrigan at 6:21 PM on October 8, 2013

So, where's the 90 minutes for liberal journalists, from Mother Jones, the Nation etc.? Nobody gives a fuck about liberal journalists? But conservative journalists are so important Obama needs to take 90 minutes out of his day to...

Or, "liberal" journalists are competent and don't need to be helped across the street or with tying their shoelaces like the conservative "journalists".
posted by juiceCake at 6:21 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

This would hardly be the first time in history that a movement got away from its backers.

Yes, the thing about useful idiots? They're idiots so sometimes they stop being useful.
posted by Justinian at 6:23 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

Sweet Jeebus, guys, it's not that hard: the coin is obviously the first ever minting of a Triganic Pu!
posted by Hairy Lobster at 6:23 PM on October 8, 2013

This would hardly be the first time in history that a movement got away from its backers. As Prime Minister Caine once put it, You're only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!

Right, of course it's possible to veer too heavily in the direction of orthodox economic theory and assume that political actors are strictly rational and evince a deterministic relationship between policy support and financial interest. But when you're talking, basically, about blowing up the world economy, I would think that the Tea Party's pecuniary masters would shut them down really fucking quickly if a USA credit default was staring them in the face. So is it more likely that they really can't control them at all, that even their masters don't think a default is coming, or that they actually wouldn't mind a default? After all, Wall Street is heavily invested in things like T-bills whose ultimate collateral is the sanctity of a nation-state's credit; maybe the key here is that Tea Party backers have entirely different investment profiles and wouldn't mind having a storm that would ruin Wall Street and leave themselves relatively intact. I mean, I don't know. I'm just curious and speculating.
posted by clockzero at 6:31 PM on October 8, 2013

I would think that the Tea Party's pecuniary masters would shut them down really fucking quickly if a USA credit default was staring them in the face.

Again, evidence suggests that the men who hold the purse strings are true believers. They believe that the US defaulting isn't nearly as big a deal as Obamacare.

Sadly, they only way to shut down the Tea Party is to shut down their financial backers. I don't have any short term, non-violent ways that might accomplish this. Perhaps we can work some sort of Trading Places scam on the Koch brothers? Bet you a dollar we can.
posted by Joey Michaels at 6:42 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Holeee crap, here's Cantor's 'fuck-you Obama' op-ed. Interesting Ryan/Cantor one-two op-ed tactic going on.
posted by TwoWordReview at 6:49 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

In the 224 years of our nation’s history, one party has controlled the House, Senate and White House for 130 years. President Obama enjoyed two of those years, and it’s no surprise he wishes that were still the case. Yet while 28 of 44 U.S. presidents have found a way to lead in divided government, this president has not.

Yeah there must be something about this president, some different than the others, that has brought us to this pass. What oh what could it be?
posted by angrycat at 6:55 PM on October 8, 2013 [18 favorites]

Again, evidence suggests that the men who hold the purse strings are true believers. They believe that the US defaulting isn't nearly as big a deal as Obamacare.

If we assume they're operating on the basis of financial interest, that seems really unlikely because by any dispassionate and sober analysis (the kind that leads you to control purse strings in the world's wealthiest and most powerful nation) the ACA is sort of a big giveaway to private insurers. Nobody important is losing money on the ACA. On the other hand, everyone agrees that a default would be financially catastrophic; the dispute is about whether life as we know it would end or if it would merely cause another great depression, it seems.

We could also assume that the purse-string-holders are acting with disregard to the financial impact, that they're motivated by non-monetary ideology; but what could possibly be that important to people who've spent their entire lives in the endeavor of acquisition?

Sadly, they only way to shut down the Tea Party is to shut down their financial backers. I don't have any short term, non-violent ways that might accomplish this. Perhaps we can work some sort of Trading Places scam on the Koch brothers? Bet you a dollar we can.

That would teach 'em.
posted by clockzero at 6:57 PM on October 8, 2013

That Cantor article was awful and pointless. Random partisan attack like that doesn't meld well with trying to play the responsible adult in the room who just wants to negotiate. Nobody but your base buys Obama as an unreasonable dictator. I thought the third comment down demolished the whole article simply and effectively.
posted by Drinky Die at 6:59 PM on October 8, 2013 [10 favorites]

aahh Republicans are trying to counter snappy soundbites and lockstep party unity with lengthy pleading op-eds and I don't know where I am anymore
posted by jason_steakums at 7:01 PM on October 8, 2013 [5 favorites]

If we assume they're operating on the basis of financial interest,

This would seem to be a pretty big assumption. Further, given the spin coming from Republicans, it's worth wondering if they believe in the same number that you do. When the Kochs start saying that this seems like a bad idea, then we'll know things have gone off the rails.
posted by Going To Maine at 7:01 PM on October 8, 2013

But when you're talking, basically, about blowing up the world economy, I would think that the Tea Party's pecuniary masters would shut them down really fucking quickly if a USA credit default was staring them in the face

Unless they're heavily invested in gold and arms manufacturers, etc.
posted by empath at 7:10 PM on October 8, 2013

Just look at Koch Industries' products from wikipedia: "Asphalt, chemicals, commodities trading, energy, fibers, fertilizers, finance, minerals, natural gas, plastics, petroleum, pulp and paper, ranching"

That's a business that's going to do okay in a recession.
posted by jason_steakums at 7:11 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Don't the Koch's make most of their money from oil in a fully private enterprise? They may care a lot more about gaining political power and rolling back regulations, or whatever, for the long term than short term profit and economic growth. Their oil isn't going anywhere; it will make them money eventually; and they don't have shareholders to please. I'm sure they have enough money personally to live like kings through a century of major depression. It is also possible they actually did drink the cool-aid and believe in tea party nonsense about the New Deal destroying the country or something as others have suggested.
posted by Golden Eternity at 7:13 PM on October 8, 2013

I think I'm listening to the same podcast - Mike Duncan's, right? - and it has done nothing for my peace of mind.

Yes, that one.
posted by empath at 7:14 PM on October 8, 2013

It is also possible they actually did drink the cool-aid and believe in tea party nonsense about the New Deal destroying the country or something as others have suggested.

Who would you aspire to be if you were the Kochs? I think they gleefully help serve up the kool-aid because it's damn sure useful to them, but they've set their sights a lot higher than the rank and file Tea Party ideals. Why be a lowly Galt when you can be JP Morgan, the man so rich the government came to him for salvation?
posted by jason_steakums at 7:25 PM on October 8, 2013

Cantor is a smarmy, smirky, self-righteous little prick. He always oozes sanctimony as he fancies himself the smartest person in the room. I hope my fellow Virginians have the good sense to toss him out next time around.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 7:29 PM on October 8, 2013 [12 favorites]

Republicans Are Awfully Close to Violating the Constitution

Have Republicans forgotten that they too must abide by the Constitution?

The document is explicit in its instruction to America's federally elected officials – make good on the country's debts. "The validity of the public debt of the United States," the 14th Amendment states, "shall not be questioned."
[...]
What happens if Congress doesn't act? Some opine, probably correctly, that the House will impeach Obama if he moves unilaterally on the debt ceiling after the House declines to act. But others argue that if the House does nothing, and Obama refuses to step in, impeachment would then indeed be appropriate.

"Obama should be impeached if the Congress allows a default and he does nothing," said Sean Willenz, a Princeton University history professor who has argued the merits of 14th Amendment action. "The president has taken a solemn oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. If he does not act in response to a blatant violation of the Constitution, then he will have violated his oath, and deserve to be impeached."

posted by Golden Eternity at 7:37 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

I think the end game here is for the Republicans to impeach Obama. They desperately want to do it. Never mind that they can't remove him from office.
posted by empath at 7:45 PM on October 8, 2013

They cannot successfully impeach Obama for bullshit reasons. The Democrats control the Senate.
posted by Justinian at 7:48 PM on October 8, 2013

If you need to cure the nausea from reading Ryan and Cantor, try:

U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, chair of the Senate budget committee, makes a pitch for ending the federal government shutdown.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:48 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

They cannot successfully impeach Obama for bullshit reasons. The Democrats control the Senate.

<pedant>The House impeaches a president, then the Senate votes to convict. So Obama could be impeached, but he'll never be convicted.</pedant>
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:54 PM on October 8, 2013 [4 favorites]

Yeah I thought that was implied by "successfully" and "Senate" but you are correct.
posted by Justinian at 7:55 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Obama impeachment would end Republicans even pretending to try and lure black voters for two to three hundred years.
posted by Drinky Die at 7:55 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Didn't parse "successfully" well there. Hoist on my own petard! Sorry.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 7:58 PM on October 8, 2013

The kicker is that if the Republicans were just, y'know, as moderately effective as a single-chamber majority can be, and did a decent job while pushing their policies and fighting when they needed to and just backing the hell off the drama of the 2012 election season they'd probably have scooped up a bunch of seats easily in the midterms without compromising their values. But nooope, this is the plan they went with.
posted by jason_steakums at 8:01 PM on October 8, 2013

I hope my fellow Virginians have the good sense to toss him out next time around.

Unfortunately, it's not in the cards. Cantor's district is pretty safe GOP territory. The most we can hope and work for is the defeat of Cuccinelli and Jackson next month. I'm not a government worker but I know and I'm friends with government workers and my own work has been impacted by the shutdown. I am so pissed at the GOP and Tea Partiers right now that I've actually signed up to go canvassing for McAuliffe and Northam. If you knew me in real life, you'd know how angry and motivated I must be at this point, because I HATE canvassing with the fire of a thousand suns. I'm not even a huge fan of McAuliffe (Northam I like), but I detest Cuccinelli, Jackson and the rest of their neo-confederate party and I will donate, volunteer, phone bank, GOTV to the utmost of my ability to see them defeated this year and next.
posted by longdaysjourney at 8:14 PM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

Must...stop...reading comments...on news articles...
posted by Iridic at 8:48 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

The left thinks business controls the Republican Party. They’re wrong.

What’s happening here is unprecedented since the civil war. I'm not saying there’ve never been closures before. I don't think we’ve seen a major party since 1860 threaten to shut down the entire government if they can’t overturn a presidential election. Think of the irony of that. At its birth, the Republican Party was held up by the losing Democrats in the 1860 election who said we will destroy the union if you don't sign onto our agenda. You can call it tactics but that sounds minor. I don't think this is minor.

posted by Golden Eternity at 9:01 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Nobody from Arizona has said anything crazy this whole time.

WAIT!

(yes, yes, we know you're not ALL crazy, it's just everyone that gets elected there, etc... etc... )
posted by Artw at 9:13 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

Yesterday it was a salmonella outbreak in chickens that the hamstrung government was scrambling to contain, and now we learn that the shutdown is preventing the government from helping cattle ranchers in South Dakota deal with the tens of thousands of cows that were killed by a blizzard over the weekend.

Everyone knows Jesus was a hippie, but it seems like God's a bit of a lefty Himself, what with all the prominent reminders that government actually helps people out occasionally.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:25 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

I really cannot understand how some are denying that a debt default would be a huge effing deal.

The only parallel I can draw is that this is much like the 2012 elections— where they were so cocooned in their bubble believing their 'unskewed' polls that they missed the reality that they were going to get destroyed, just as now they're missing the reality that defaulting on our debt is as insane as declaring war on the sun. I'm glad I didn't have to wake up a Republican last Nov 7, but I'd prefer that any day to waking up realizing you willfully destroyed the world economy because you didn't think it would be that big a deal.
posted by localhuman at 9:27 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

localhuman, your error is the assumption that they're arguing in good faith. Maybe two or three dumbest ones really don't think it'll be a big deal, but I guarantee you a majority of them know it will be terrible, but want to use it as leverage anyway.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:32 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

In the 2012 election, the GOP held onto the majority in the House, losing only 4 seats despite being outvoted by over 1.5 million. I suspect that the House-based nut-cases feel somewhat indestructible.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:34 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

It's just the normal way of life in a working society, not something exceptional. A man or woman from the government shows up and says, "I'm here to help."

And then people are less scared.
posted by Drinky Die at 9:52 PM on October 8, 2013 [1 favorite]

here's obama's press conference from today: President Obama Delivers a Statement and Answers Questions from the Press

here's a couple recent editorials from the 'liberal' FT...

FT: Decline and fall of American politics - "If brinkmanship in Congress results in market turmoil, the disruption to the international financial order fashioned in the US's image will be severe. The Republicans' alarming disregard for their own country's credibility has to end."

FT: Default is defeat for Republicans - "A key wing of his party is prepared to wreck America's reputation as the bedrock of the global economy. They are Republicans in name only. For the sake of his party's reputation, Mr Boehner should end the crisis now."

a view from the right ('a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and a senior editor at National Review')

Ramesh Ponnuru: How to Make a Non-Disastrous Debt-Limit Deal - "There is no precedent for the satisfaction of such demands. Look back at every previous piece of legislation that raised the debt limit while also making changes to other government policies, and almost always the debt limit was the occasion for a bipartisan deal rather than the achievement of only one party's goals."

and perhaps stating the obvious...

Cass Sunstein: Shutdown Psychology Made Simple - "The best explanation of the U.S. government shutdown points to two factors. The first involves information, or what people think they know. The second involves incentives, or what motivates our elected representatives. From decades of empirical research, we know that when like-minded people speak with one another, they tend to become more extreme, more confident and more unified -- the phenomenon known as group polarization. One reason involves the spread of information within echo chambers."

Shit just got real.

Gallup: Sharp decline in Confidence - "Americans' confidence in the economy has deteriorated more in the past week during the partial government shutdown than in any week since Lehman Brothers collapsed on Sept. 15, 2008, which triggered a global economic crisis."

and last, but not least, 'conservative' andrew sullivan...

There Is No There There: "This is a function of many factors the Dish has covered for years – the intellectual bankruptcy of conservatism under George W Bush; the rise of fundamentalist thinking in religion, economics and politics; the cultural marooning of the white rural poor; the substitution of a political party with a media-industrial complex that simply wants conflict for ratings and money; the collapse of anything that might be called a conservative intelligentsia able to converse with a liberal intelligentsia on common, empirical grounds; the cowardice of Republican elites in the face of their know-nothing wing, epitomized most brutally by John McCain's selection of a delusional crazy person as his vice-presidential candidate in 2008; and the recourse to purism of an almost absurdist variety on the right... The GOP have driven themselves into a tight, airless corner of ideological purity and self-destruction. The trouble is: their own self-destruction means ours as well. And the world's."

personally, i like this idea: How the Debt Ceiling Will be Resolved

Even if negotiations were to go to the brink, Cullen Roche at Pragmatic Capitalism pointed out a piece of analysis by Vincent Reinhart indicating that one of three laws will have to get broken if the debt ceiling isn't raised:
If the Treasury is unwilling to stretch the definition of extraordinary measures, on the day that the Federal Reserve predicts that the Treasury will run out of cash in its account and the Treasury is bound by the debt ceiling, it suspends all payments and awaits instructions from the Treasury. As a result, the government's principal economic officials will face the prospect of violating one of these three laws:
The Second Liberty Bond Act of 1917 that establishes the debt ceiling;

The Federal Reserve Act that prohibits the Fed from lending directly to the Treasury; or,

The 14th Amendment of the Constitution that holds that the debt of the United States government, lawfully issued, will not be questioned.
Roche postulated that #3, the Constitution, ranks senior to the other laws, so Treasury Secretary Jack Lew and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke would likely choose to violate #2 in order to prevent a global financial meltdown. However, there would be a conversation that would go something like this before it ever happened:
Tsy Sec Jack Lew: "Ben, I'm about to break the law here if we don't do something. Oh, and we're about to crash the global financial system. How about you enact the exigent circumstances clause and just fund our account?"

Fed Chief Ben Bernanke: "Sure, but I want some guarantees that I am not going to be the only one on the hook here for this."

Lew: "Sure thing." [Dials in President Obama]

President Obama: "Hey dudes, how can I help?"

Bernanke: "If I am going to save the world AGAIN, I need some guarantees I won't go to jail this time around. Can you guarantee that?"

Obama: "Of course. Your stock market rally saved my skin on more than one occasion. I'll put you at the top of the pardon list."

Bernanke: "Swell. Oh, and I want lifetime beard groomings also. This thing doesn't keep itself looking this good all by itself."

Obama: "Done."

Lew: "Great, now someone phone down to those clowns on the floor of Congress and inform them that their little games are pointless."

but i take the economist's point: "why relieve congress of the pressure to act when it has the capability of doing so?"
posted by kliuless at 9:56 PM on October 8, 2013 [40 favorites]

Wow, kliuless, that was like a bonus post. Thanks for those links.
posted by clockzero at 10:08 PM on October 8, 2013

The absolutely most patronizing thing is Boehner's continuing use of the word 'conversation' when he means negotiation, which really means his dictating of terms. WE GET IT ALREADY. The President of the United States called you up personally for like the third time this week. Why exactly was that not a conversation?
posted by newdaddy at 10:15 PM on October 8, 2013 [3 favorites]

oh and: Understanding the Game Being Played in Washington

Democrats and commentators of varying political leanings have argued that by putting the debt ceiling in play the GOP is effectively breaking the rules of the game. They're right that such behavior hasn't been the norm. But the don't-push-it-too-far-with-the-debt-ceiling convention is, like most political norms, subject to revision. With a few Constitutionally determined exceptions (and even those are of course subject to repeated reinterpretation), the rules of political conduct in the U.S. change over time, not in a smooth progression but along a path of punctuated equilibrium. That notion was imported from evolutionary biology (where it's not entirely uncontroversial) into political science in 1993 by Frank Baumgartner and Bryan D. Jones, with the book Agendas and Instability in American Politics. In this account, politics is usually in equilibrium, with the rules clear and the opportunities for change few. But things can change, and when they do it usually happens quickly...

Let's consider what House Republicans have learned from their two years of debt-limit brinkmanship. They have learned, first of all, that it works. They got the White House to agree to a bunch of automatic spending cuts (the sequester) in 2011, and then in early 2013 they were able, from what seemed to be an exceptionally weak bargaining position after President Obama's reelection, to keep most of the Bush-era tax cuts from expiring and to force yet another debt-ceiling battle only a few months later. More broadly, Republican office-holders and activists have learned over the past couple of decades that making what at first sound like unreasonable demands (no new taxes, no gun control) and repeating them for years on end can actually shift the terms of the debate to the point where the demands seem normal. It has been a successful strategy... [overton window *cough*] for President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, the lesson from the last two years is that negotiating over the debt ceiling is a loser's game. Every time they accede to House Republican demands, the GOP comes back a few months later demanding more — even after a clear election loss. So it shouldn't be surprising that Obama and Reid might be willing to risk economic calamity in order not to have to submit to such blackmail again.

Put all this together, and it looks like we have the makings of a train wreck. It also looks like it's probably up to Boehner to avert it, which he appears to acknowledge. But that's not as reassuring as it might sound when you consider how unstable the tactical ground is upon which he stands... Still there must be room for horse trading somewhere. And it's much more likely to be discovered if the different players actually talk to each other... The reason is that if the players in a game don't or can't talk to each other about what they're doing, they have to fall back on trial-and-error and the prejudices and misconceptions they held going into the game. To go back to Schelling, whose work in the 1960s and 1970s prefigured much of modern economic thinking about games: "Excessively polarized behavior may be the unhappy result of dependence on tacit coordination and maneuver."

also btw: Mad Men - "Thomas Schelling showed that it could sometimes pay to be irrational, or at least to appear to be irrational. If they think you're crazy then in a game of chicken it's your opponent who will back down. It's known that Nixon understood the theory but in an frightening article in Wired we learn the insane extent to which the theory was practiced... if you want to credibly pretend you are out of control then you have to push things so far that sometimes you will be out of control. The number of ways such a plan could have resulted in a nuclear war is truly frightening. After all, Nixon was gambling millions of lives on the Soviets being the rational players in this game. Next time you are told how a madman threatens the world remember the greatest threats have come from our own mad men."
posted by kliuless at 10:40 PM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

Jon Stewart Tells GOP to Own the Shutdown: ‘Don’t Fart And Point at the Dog!’
posted by homunculus at 10:41 PM on October 8, 2013 [6 favorites]

There Is No There There

What does the GOP want? It’s a question I keep asking myself. They say they want to kill Obamacare because it is allegedly killing jobs. But in order to do that, they are threatening a default that would wipe out more jobs than the collapse of Lehman. They say they want to reduce the deficit, but the deficit has been falling extremely fast these past few years
[...]
My best guess is that since they failed to make Obama a one-term president, they now intend to do what has become their custom with second-term Democratic presidents: impeach him.
[...]
Mr Tripcony is doing us a favor. He is telling us the truth. This crisis has almost nothing to do with actual policy – as you can see from a base Republican’s rational support for a single-payer healthcare system and willingness to get Obamacare insurance. There is nothing to the current Republican strategy but blind, irrational hatred for a re-elected president: “I don’t like him, and I don’t feel comfortable with anything he’s got to do with.”

posted by Golden Eternity at 10:52 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Debt Ceiling Timeline
posted by empath at 11:21 PM on October 8, 2013 [2 favorites]

Grand Canyon food shortage turns dire (via Twitter)
posted by Elementary Penguin at 1:54 AM on October 9, 2013

Obama impeachment would end Republicans even pretending to try and lure black voters for two to three hundred years.

That's OK, they got SCOTUS to approve their voter suppression. Why worry about attracting potential voters when you can prevent them from voting entirely?
posted by zombieflanders at 3:47 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]

This really struck me from the article that Golden Eternity linked:

These are very good citizens. They pay attention, they speak up, they do what we're supposed to do. But they're undemocratic in the sense that they don't always feel others have the legitimacy to speak up and participate. In the field work we did, we never heard anyone speak up and say they believed in the need to let others be part of the process and to compromise with their idea.

This is exactly what we're seeing now, not just with the shutdown and complete revision of the facts surrounding it, but by the response to the voter response that they're getting at home. The article on Ted Yoho (who is unfortunately the congressman from the next district over from mine), that was linked upthread, shows perfectly that if you don't agree with them, they do not care what you have to say or think. We don't count to them:

It’s a constituent, Greg from Gainesville, who is telling Yoho he’s wrong on the shutdown. There are people in Yoho’s district losing aid and pay because of the government shutdown, Greg says. It’s time to pass a “clean” funding bill and reopen the government.

“I mean, we do have a lot of need all over the area,” Yoho told him, sounding sympathetic. “And we’re working on getting something resolved here, as fast as we can.”

He hung up. So what was that about? Is Yoho really working to get this shutdown resolved as fast as he can?

Yoho said nothing had changed. He would not give another inch.
posted by hollygoheavy at 4:39 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

We are now up to 17 families of servicemembers killed since the shutdown who have not received the death benefits usually wired to help pay for funeral expenses.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:39 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]

(and as to the above, a private organization has stepped in to help those families)
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 4:41 AM on October 9, 2013

So, my question is when does the stock market freak out. I mean, I've read upthread a bit about the dynamic, but bloody hell, it feels like everybody is running around with their flammable heads on fire and the stock market is like 'do do do hmm do do do'
posted by angrycat at 5:18 AM on October 9, 2013

So, my question is when does the stock market freak out.

They've already resigned themselves that the shutdown will last as long as the debt limit crisis looms - it's a GOP bargaining chip. Their equivalent of shooting a hostage to prove they're serious. The big money movers are betting someone will blink before the deadline. An actual default, however, will result in Instant Armageddon - 2008 all over again.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:49 AM on October 9, 2013

it's just bizarre to me that the WSJ would publish the Cantor op-ed. Wouldn't the WSJ be like, okay, we love capitalism and shit and this crazy fucker seems to be committed to driving us over the cliff?

Granted, there are a lot of aspects to this I don't understand.
posted by angrycat at 6:29 AM on October 9, 2013

The link for today's Washington Post live updates on the shutdown.
posted by exogenous at 6:31 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

angrycat: The Cantor op-ed is in the Washington Post, not the the WSJ. The WSJ ran the Ryan op-ed.
posted by Going To Maine at 6:41 AM on October 9, 2013

why can't these idiots just go play GTA V and get out their destructive racist violent impulses in a healthy way like everyone else
posted by skrozidile at 6:54 AM on October 9, 2013

Because smashing the lives of digital people is not as big a rush as smashing real ones. Power is a hell of a drug, and these guys are pumped full of adrenaline and machismo and self-righteous douchebaggery.
posted by emjaybee at 7:12 AM on October 9, 2013

What if we're all wrong and the market is right? Maybe the debt ceiling actually is unimportant.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:16 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

I have nothing productive to add, other than to say thanks mefites for keeping me up to my eyeballs in interesting articles to read about this whole thing.

America! This is why we can't have nice things!
posted by inertia at 7:18 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]

What if we're all wrong and the market is right? Maybe the debt ceiling actually is unimportant.

The market is not betting that the debt ceiling is unimportant; it's betting that things won't come to a default, because they never have before.
posted by kewb at 7:18 AM on October 9, 2013 [14 favorites]

Right you are. I hope the market is right, too.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:23 AM on October 9, 2013

Also, if "the market" had good predictive power, then things like the recent housing crisis wouldn't have happened, because all of the perfectly rational actors (and spherical cows, etc) would have correctly priced the junk bonds as junk and nobody would've gotten surprised when it all went to hell.
posted by indubitable at 7:32 AM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]

What if we're all wrong and the market is right? Maybe the debt ceiling actually is unimportant.

IANAEconomist, but I'm reading this excellent article that was linked above, which says:

Has the United States ever defaulted on its debt before?

Sort of. Back in 1979, the government inadvertently defaulted on about $122 million worth of Treasury bills, due to unexpectedly high demand and an error in word-processing equipment. This was only temporary, and Treasury quickly corrected the error.

Still, the damage was long-lasting. A 1989 study in the Financial Review estimated that the incident raised the nation's borrowing costs by about 0.6 percent, or $12 billion. And the damage lasted for months. That was after a brief, accidental default that was corrected quickly. A debt-ceiling breach today would almost certainly be far more consequential.

I would think that if an accidental temporary default had a negative effect that lasted for months, the consequences of an intentional, avoidable default would be much greater.
posted by inertia at 7:33 AM on October 9, 2013 [13 favorites]

Ted Cruz would like you to know that despite the shutdown, his family had a great time in DC last weekend.
posted by roomthreeseventeen at 8:43 AM on October 9, 2013

This Firedoglake piece claims that not only is the no rational motive driving this situation, the 1% would actually feel it first if we defaulted.

Which is appealing, in a short-sighted way, but given that most of us cynically believe our politicians, including Tea Party types, to be bought and paid for by the 1%, does that really seem likely?

I think that's what's bugging me the most; we seem to have evidence from the NY Times piece that this whole thing was orchestrated, but at the same time, it seems very chaotic and dangerous even to the supporters of those doing it. What's the real story? Did they actually not have a plan for what to do if Obama didn't cave on ACA?
posted by emjaybee at 8:45 AM on October 9, 2013

I think they think Jesus will save them.
posted by mdn at 8:51 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

Did they actually not have a plan for what to do if Obama didn't cave on ACA?

That's pretty much it. Now it's a calculation of risk - do they take the financial hit to keep their clout in congress, and punish the President until he eventually gives in? How much is the potential for power worth? It's a gamble rather than a solid investment, but these guys don't like admitting the role luck gave them in their success, and don't like to think of it running out on them.
posted by Slap*Happy at 8:54 AM on October 9, 2013

but given that most of us cynically believe our politicians, including Tea Party types, to be bought and paid for by the 1%, does that really seem likely?

Doug Henwood thinks that the 1% have lost control of their useful idiots in the Tea Party.
posted by enn at 8:55 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]

Did they actually not have a plan for what to do if Obama didn't cave on ACA?

Yeah legislative geniuses they aren't. I don't even understand how they expect to modify the ACA at this point - the Senate passes and Obama signs legislation that takes away the promise of insurance coverage from people who have already signed up? This is what they're holding out for?
posted by RedOrGreen at 8:55 AM on October 9, 2013

This Firedoglake piece claims that not only is the no rational motive driving this situation, the 1% would actually feel it first if we defaulted.

Only if you believe that being worth, say, 25 million US$ feels much different than being worth 250 million or 1 billion or whatever.
At some point, your net worth cannot afford you anything new material and the only difference that it makes is psychological. I.e. the very rich (if they care about that stuff) define themselves in terms of their relative wealth to others. And if everybody is screwed, then that relative pecking order still stays intact and the 1% wouldn't feel a damn thing.
posted by sour cream at 8:56 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]

Clearly you don't know the heartbreak of having to settle for 16kt gold fixtures on your yacht instead of 24kt.
posted by entropicamericana at 8:57 AM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]

Drudge Report headline today, for an article titled "GOP Gets The Blame In Shutdown": OBAMA APPROVE DROPS TO 37%

From the article, apparently not worthy of note: "Congress is scraping rock bottom, with a ghastly approval rating of 5 percent."

(Also, it was an online poll.)
posted by Rhaomi at 8:59 AM on October 9, 2013

I would like to note, for the record, that Matt Drudge is famous for (among other things) wearing a fedora.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 9:01 AM on October 9, 2013 [12 favorites]

Dave Weigel is pretty sure the Koch Bros aren't behind the shutdown and the NYT story saying as much was poorly written.

"But you can't really argue that the Kochs are "deeply involved" in the shutdown strategy.Unless, you know, it sounds really good to your base to blame the villains they're familiar with for every crisis. Then go ahead, I guess."
posted by lattiboy at 9:03 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

Dave Weigel is pretty sure the Koch Bros aren't behind the shutdown and the NYT story saying as much was poorly written.

Dave's a libertarian.
posted by Ironmouth at 9:07 AM on October 9, 2013 [5 favorites]

Dave's a libertarian.

Yes, but a generally well sourced libertarian and an actual journalist.
posted by lattiboy at 9:12 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

Is he certified and Diane Feinstein-approved?
posted by entropicamericana at 9:13 AM on October 9, 2013

Add to the piling on of irony in this surreal mess the basic truth that anything Obama and the Administration does to lessen the impact of the crisis when it comes can and will be spun as an argument that it isn't that much of a crisis after all.

The Salon link from enn backs up what I have previously suggested, that the "money" beind the Tea Party isn't Wall Street - it's the "Main Street" businesses who don't have a portfolio of stocks and bonds, just a business (like a car dealership selling imported cars) that they believe isn't profitable enough.

Dave Weigel clearly disclosed his Libertarian/Reason Magazine background in the first sentence of that piece, and he also wrote this showing the Republicans clearly losing the public opinion battle and lying/in denial about it.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:14 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]

This Firedoglake piece claims that not only is the no rational motive driving this situation, the 1% would actually feel it first if we defaulted.

Only if you believe that being worth, say, 25 million US$ feels much different than being worth 250 million or 1 billion or whatever.

I'm pretty sure the median one percenter has a net worth lower than $25 million, much less $250 million, though I would welcome hard data (a couple of pages I found said you need $8.4m to be in the 99th percentile of net worth). In any case, if the stock market dropped by 50%, plenty of one percenters would feel it.
posted by dfan at 9:15 AM on October 9, 2013

"I'd rather have a managed catastrophe now which I don't think will be there," Coburn told CNN's 'New Day' with Chris Cuomo. "I'm not saying we shouldn't pay our bills. What I’m saying is we should put ourselves in a position where we have to start making hard choices now."

Fantastic idea... start at the top where the cream (and scum) tends to collect.

hard choice: capitol gains tax increase
hard choice: eliminating all loopholes for companies making over 5 million profit a year
hard choice: raise income taxes on top 3% of income earners
hard choice: reduce military spending so it is merely 50% of discretionary spending
hard choice: raise inheritance tax to those receiving more than 1 million
hard choice: income for congressional members is tied to personal income. the more you make outside of congress the less you make serving in congress, this includes benefits
hard choice: Social security benefits is tied to net worth minus primary residence.

let me know when you tackle those hard choice then we can start talking about the rest of America.
posted by edgeways at 9:18 AM on October 9, 2013 [17 favorites]

Rhaomi: "From the article, apparently not worthy of note: "Congress is scraping rock bottom, with a ghastly approval rating of 5 percent.""

Things congress is less popular than:

Hemorrhoids
The DMV
Hipsters
Jury Duty
Zombies
Wall Street
Toenail Fungus

posted by octothorpe at 9:23 AM on October 9, 2013

Uh, let's not do that last point, edgeways. The argument that social security is successful specifically because it is a benefit for everyone is pretty convincing to me. Means-testing it undermines that.

Well and also cutting government spending in a recession is stupid.
posted by You Can't Tip a Buick at 9:23 AM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]

Conservatives Furious That Ryan Didn't Address Obamacare In Debt Proposals

Who could have seen that coming?
posted by Drinky Die at 9:25 AM on October 9, 2013

Let's be clear. Koch is the 2nd largest donor to the Reason Foundation. They used to pay Dave. He's a very nice guy, but he's just writing an apologetic here. Just because Koch claims they haven't taken a position on linking ACA repeal to a debt ceiling crash doesn't mean they aren't responsible. They are the major money force behind this stuff. Weigel doesn't even actually say they aren't behind it. And if he cannot report it factually, why is he even publishing this piece?
posted by Ironmouth at 9:26 AM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]

Maybe as the current bosses of the Republican party they could, you know, rein those fuckers in a little?
posted by Artw at 9:29 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

From Conservatives Furious That Ryan Didn't Address Obamacare In Debt Proposals:

an omission that left hardline conservatives miffed.

Holy hell, when did Paul Ryan stop being a hardline conservative?
posted by Lemurrhea at 9:36 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

Ironmouth: "Just because Koch claims they haven't taken a position on linking ACA repeal to a debt ceiling crash doesn't mean they aren't responsible. They are the major money force behind this stuff."

Exactly. By the logic offered, if I buy you lots of drinks, hand you your car keys, and walk your stumbling frame to your car where I insist you seem okay to drive to me, I'm in no way responsible for anybody who you run down on your way home.

Lemurrhea: "Holy hell, when did Paul Ryan stop being a hardline conservative?"

When the goal posts moved from 'cruel and heartless to the needy' over to 'completely and totally irrational in a way the English language doesn't have words for.'
posted by MCMikeNamara at 9:45 AM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]

The need to report BOTH SIDES THE SAME has both provided cover for this creeping madness and made the reporting of it stranger.
posted by Artw at 9:48 AM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]

An international perspective
all characters defined by flags-as-shirts: for those even more internationally illiterate than me, blue-with-yellow-stars is European Union, red-yellow-black-stripes is Belgium (I think)
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:51 AM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]

Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.): “We’re dealing with dangerous people. Either they’re on hallucinetic drugs or they just lost their minds. This is what we’re dealing with. . . . I'm from Paterson, New Jersey. You never put a gun to my head, I've got news for you.”
posted by exogenous at 9:56 AM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]

New thread's up, guys. Everyone out of the pool!
posted by Atom Eyes at 10:10 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

The need to report BOTH SIDES THE SAME has both provided cover for this creeping madness and made the reporting of it stranger.

Actually, I'd like to see some examples of this. I feel like I'm being consistently being told that both sides are being reported as the same, but most outlets I've seen have hit one side or the other pretty darn hard. Where is this totally-the-same coverage? Is it just on CNN? (And is that even true for CNN?)
posted by Going To Maine at 10:11 AM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

New thread's up, guys. Everyone out of the pool!

New thread
posted by dfan at 10:17 AM on October 9, 2013

oneswellfoop: Yes, that is Belgium. The current Belgian government was sworn in to office on December 6, 2011, after a general election held on June 13, 2010 (541 days). If you include the time from the resignation of the previous government (before the elections) to the swearing-in of the new government, you get 589 days.

I lived in Belgium from September 2010 to August 2011. During that time, eveything ran as normal, state workers were paid, and Belgium did not default on its debt. Granted, there are numerous sub-state governments in Belgium that are responsible for many of the things that a central government would do in a unitary state (these governments did not have the political impasse that the federal government did), but still. The day-to-day workings of the Belgian state were not thrown into disarray the way we are seeing in the US after only one week. Belgium did not allow itself to be destroyed by a group that wanted to take its ball and go home.
posted by dhens at 10:19 AM on October 9, 2013 [2 favorites]

I don't wanna new thread! I like this one!
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 10:19 AM on October 9, 2013

TOO BAD CAUSE OBAMA IS SHUTTING THIS ONE DOWN
posted by elizardbits at 10:25 AM on October 9, 2013 [35 favorites]

New thread here.
posted by Rykey at 10:47 AM on October 9, 2013

Thanks, Obama.
posted by Theta States at 11:42 AM on October 9, 2013 [4 favorites]

Ironmouth is going to be working overtime clearing up all the misinformation being pushed around in that new thread.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:21 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

The new thread is full of ridiculous derails. Maybe we can keep some semi-serious discussion going in this one?
posted by troika at 1:10 PM on October 9, 2013 [3 favorites]

Is this a good time to discuss my idea for a "3rd Ammendment Solution"? Basically, to prevent default we save money by quartering troops in people's houses. I think the lack of appropriations for the bases implies that this is prescribed by law. I'm not a lawyer but I am 100% sure this is constitutional.
posted by Drinky Die at 1:22 PM on October 9, 2013 [7 favorites]

The new thread is full of ridiculous derails.
Yup it is getting pretty silly over there.
posted by dougzilla at 1:44 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

New thread is full of stupid.

The health insurance thread is pretty good though.
posted by Artw at 2:40 PM on October 9, 2013

They think Jesus is going to save them

Yeah, apparently that's not even a joke. The shutdown is part of the Signs of the End Times, apparently.
posted by jokeefe at 3:42 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

I will reiterate that this is looking more and more like CASE NIGHTMARE GREEN.

I just wish my damn beowulf cluster would stop barfing out black goo. I think I'm aligning the grounding ward wrong, because I can't get a clear line to N'yarlotep. Also, the damn Nasghul are still trying to breach my perimeter defenses with vampires. I guess they didn't count on my having 2 forbidden manuscripts, instead of the usual one off most cultists use.
posted by daq at 3:53 PM on October 9, 2013

The shutdown is part of the Signs of the End Times, apparently.

As somebody raised evangelical Baptist, is where I call bullshit (and not just about the shutdown). If it's the end times, what fucking difference does it make what happens? Fund Obamacare! Hell, institute free health care and puppies for all! Laugh all the way to heaven at how foolish we all are to even think about any earthly comforts! If anything, you'll be helping to fulfill prophecy faster!
posted by Rykey at 4:14 PM on October 9, 2013 [13 favorites]

Trucker protest gets crazier with lady who believes Obama is Osama
posted by Sticherbeast at 6:04 PM on October 9, 2013 [6 favorites]

I'm unfollowing the other one as tedious backseat driver nonsense. Here's hoping any decent updates make their way over here.
posted by Artw at 11:13 PM on October 9, 2013 [1 favorite]

No worries, I've embarked on a brave plan to restore the rightful thread to power.
posted by Rhaomi at 11:48 PM on October 9, 2013 [8 favorites]

Well played, Rhaomi. I will gladly be Mike Lee to your Senator Cruz.
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:04 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

Greg Sargent summarizes the state-of-play at this morning's Plum. Key takeaway, echoed by NBC's Michael O’Brien and Mark Murray, is that, right now, as a whole, the GOP can't decide on what to ask for even if the White House agreed to negotiate.

"The new idea appears to be that if Republicans keep the government shutdown status quo alive long enough — deferring default for the time being — then vulnerable Dems will ultimately cave and give up … something."

posted by octobersurprise at 7:08 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

From the Post liveblog, Drunk Dial Congress!
posted by troika at 7:50 AM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]

Sooooo I just put my phone number in, expecting that I'd get, like, "Here is the number of the representative that matches your area code!" which is incredibly naive of me, I know, but actually they call you and connect you to the office of a random congressperson. This is probably said very clearly on the website. Anyway. They connected me to Rep. Barbara Lee, Democrat from California, and I kind of regret not thanking her for being great. Instead I panicked and said "wrong number, sorry!" Oh well.
posted by troika at 7:56 AM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]

Fuck You Congress
posted by jeffburdges at 8:14 AM on October 10, 2013

Trucker protest gets crazier with lady who believes Obama is Osama

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so scary, the sight of Greta Van Susteren, a Scientologist, interviewing Crazy Trucker Lady, a paranoid freak. I wonder about Van Susteren. In the '90s she was a more-or-less ordinary lawyer/CNN pundit, regarded by the right as Clinton apologist. Now she's interviewing people who think the President is an alien. Was it just the money or did she lose her mind somewhere?
posted by octobersurprise at 8:45 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

Even if it somehow ever entered my head that Barack Obama might be Osama bin Laden, I'd never fucking tell no-goddamn-body, let alone publicly proclaim it. But that's just me.
posted by Rykey at 9:48 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

She's a brave truth-teller!
posted by Artw at 9:55 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

Was it just the money or did she lose her mind somewhere?

As with all the other formerly-respectable journalists who have gone to work for FoxNews, it's the money. And job security. Journalism is not doing well, but propaganda is always a growth industry.
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:19 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

I love Drunk Dial Congress. I can't wait to try it out later when I can.

Honestly, if I have to listen to elected officials spewing out Bachmann-level bullshit, they should have to listen to MY drunken asinine theories about the world.
posted by inertia at 10:22 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

Nancy Pelosi is about to speak, CSPAN will stream it here but you probably want to mute it until they're done with the guy who keeps referring to it as a government "slowdown."

CSPAN, your callers. Woof.
posted by troika at 11:39 AM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

you guys... i miss this thread
posted by Z. Aurelius Fraught at 1:13 PM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]

We should totally keep it going! We just got a six week extension!
posted by Elementary Penguin at 1:18 PM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]

I love CSPAN callers. That morning show where some guy in a suit just reads the papers while nutjobs rant at him until he hangs up? Gold.
posted by Bulgaroktonos at 1:51 PM on October 10, 2013 [6 favorites]

Republicans Need a Graceful Exit Strategy, Now
posted by Artw at 3:44 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]

Read Artw's article, as always skip the comments.
posted by Joey Michaels at 4:13 PM on October 10, 2013

Nate Silver temporarily emerges from his cocoon to dump cold water on any notion that this will hurt the Republicans.
posted by chrchr at 5:28 PM on October 10, 2013 [2 favorites]

Sheesh. When Megan McCardle thinks you're an idiot, you know the writing's on the wall.
posted by octobersurprise at 5:29 PM on October 10, 2013 [3 favorites]

game recognize game
posted by klangklangston at 5:52 PM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]

Ah, my shutdown peeps, why didn't you let me know you were all still hanging out here?
posted by madamjujujive at 7:22 PM on October 10, 2013 [1 favorite]

sorry madamjujujive, you weren't considered essential, so we had to furlough you.
posted by Think_Long at 7:43 PM on October 10, 2013 [7 favorites]

Nate's a little biased for team red, and it showed in that article - he moved the goalposts. The Senate was supposed to be in play, not the House... the Democrats were about as vulnerable as they're ever going to get in retaining control of the Senate. That's gone, now. Toast. That people are talking at all about the GOP losing the House is a Huge Deal - it's unlikely, but it's in play. That should be giving the big donors conniptions - not only do they need to fend off nutjob primary challengers to keep things from getting worse, now they need to spend real money in the general.

I'm not saying he's putting a thumb on the scales for his boys - but he's whistling awful loud past the graveyard.
posted by Slap*Happy at 7:55 PM on October 10, 2013

Nate's a little biased for team red...

That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I've ever heard anyone say about him.
posted by Uncle Ira at 8:03 PM on October 10, 2013

I'm not saying he's putting a thumb on the scales for his boys - but he's whistling awful loud past the graveyard.

Uh, what? He started as a diarist on dailykos. You can't get more Team Blue than that.
posted by empath at 8:12 PM on October 10, 2013

That is the first time I've ever seen Silver get accused of being a conservative.
posted by Think_Long at 8:46 PM on October 10, 2013 [4 favorites]

Silver's job is to use statistics to make political predictions. His article says that the statistics are inconclusive to this point. That doesn't make him a conservative.
posted by codacorolla at 8:57 PM on October 10, 2013

Nate's a little biased for team red

. . . Nate Silver? Uh, what?
posted by KathrynT at 10:46 PM on October 10, 2013

Poblano biased for Republicans? I honestly can't say I've ever heard that one before.
posted by Justinian at 1:30 AM on October 11, 2013

* Diarist on DailyKos.
* After starting FiveThirtyEight but before working with the NYT, collaborated with Obama campaign pollsters on data analysis.
* Member of Journolist, Ezra Klein's infamous Google Group for "several hundred left-leaning bloggers and reporters"; Klein deliberately excluded conservatives.
* Accused by the GOP, on the eve of the election, of being in the tank for Obama.
* After the election, the target of an attempted nuke-from-orbit by Jonah Goldberg.

Yes, I'm sure he quaffs brews with Erick Erickson. Just the type.

Anyway, he does have one fundamental point, which is that the shutdown is not actually very subject to any electoral metrics. That's actually how it happened in the first place -- the shutdown strategists, as the New Yorker article posted earlier describe, come from an America where Obama lost the election by thirty-four points. They won't lose their seats and aren't really subject to much arm-twisting even within their own party.
posted by dhartung at 2:01 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]

In a 2012 interview with Charlie Rose he stated, "I'd say I am somewhere in-between being a libertarian and a liberal. So if I were to vote it would be kind of a Gary Johnson versus Mitt Romney decision, I suppose."

Yeah, that sounds like a True Blue Democrat, all right.
posted by Slap*Happy at 5:10 AM on October 11, 2013

He & Sam Wang are going to have a stat-fight.
posted by Going To Maine at 5:54 AM on October 11, 2013

Yeah, that sounds like a True Blue Democrat, all right.

If you've got any evidence at all that his political stance, whatever it is, has ever been reflected as being "biased for team red" in his polling and/or predictions, we'd love to hear it.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:01 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]

If he is between a libertarian and a liberal, why did he say Johnson and Romney? Either he is a moron or he misspoke, slap*happy. Which do you think is more likely?
posted by empath at 6:01 AM on October 11, 2013

Which do you think is more likely?

I think he, like most Americans, believes his political views are "in the middle" - it's not the first time he's identified as moderate-right libertarian (tho I'm having trouble tracking down the interview). When it comes to hard numbers, he cannot be easily challenged. When it comes to the soft science of perspective... well, the spat with PPP indicates he's not the pillar of pure rational analysis some hold him up as. He's a poker player, sports fan, math nerd and he follows the Democrats because their races are more interesting, not because he's aligned with their politics or invested in their victory.
posted by Slap*Happy at 6:19 AM on October 11, 2013

I still have no idea what that has to do with his prediction. History is on his side: there was no wave election and takeback of Congress after the last shutdown (plus the impeachment). It took 8 years, complete incompetence at all levels of government, and the Democrats adopting many of the same strategies as Karl Rove just to get a slim majority. If you want to argue that on its merits, fine. But arguing because of some nebulous ideological weirdness is basically just a "gut feeling" stance.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:52 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]

I, too, am worried that Nate Silvers move from NYT to Grantland/ESPN signals a shift from a non-partisan, black and white perspective towards team red.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:15 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]

today's Washington Post live updates link
posted by exogenous at 7:16 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]

I trust Silver on polling stats, so probably the most important thing he says us that there aren't enough of those to say much based on them.
posted by Artw at 7:21 AM on October 11, 2013

In the wake of polls suggesting that the GOP is only slightly more popular than cancer, Erick Son of Erick is determined to prove a villain since he cannot prove a lover.

No, really,

" ... when I checked into my hotel after eleven last night, there was a backlog of weepy, crying emails from people ready to surrender. Why?

Because the GOP has gone from being not liked to being not liked? Because this Congress has gone from being the worst ever to the worst ever?

Surrender should not be an option. This fight has been and remains about Obamacare ... The GOP should have this fight and make this case."

The comments are enlightening if only as a demonstration that some fraction of the GOP base really wants to believe this conflict is apocalyptic. They're nearly to the point of saying "Fuck it," and just declaring war on the Yankee government. (From the safety of their rumpus rooms, that is.)
posted by octobersurprise at 7:23 AM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]

PPP released a new MoveOn sponsored poll showing more GOP house seats at risk to generic Democrats.
posted by DynamiteToast at 7:31 AM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]

On the heels of Erickson's declaration, Greg Sargent writes ominously in The Morning Plum

"For Republicans, simply agreeing to raise the debt limit, without getting anything in return, represents a surrender of their ability to use future debt limit deadlines as leverage in policy disputes. This gets at precisely the crux of the disagreement between the two parties."

posted by octobersurprise at 8:01 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]

Sheesh. When Megan McCardle thinks you're an idiot, you know the writing's on the wall.

More "hey this is bad" from the right: "Why the Shutdown is a Disaster for Small-Government Principles" (in American Conservative)
posted by aka burlap at 8:49 AM on October 11, 2013 [2 favorites]

"For Republicans, simply agreeing to raise the debt limit, without getting anything in return, represents a surrender of their ability to use future debt limit deadlines as leverage in policy disputes. This gets at precisely the crux of the disagreement between the two parties."

Basically the difference between adults and toddlers.
posted by Artw at 9:05 AM on October 11, 2013

I still have no idea what that has to do with his prediction.

I made no comment on his prediction, other than he moved the goalposts, which is indisputable.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:11 AM on October 11, 2013

More "hey this is bad" from the right: "Why the Shutdown is a Disaster for Small-Government Principles" (in American Conservative)

The American Conservative is a little frustrating for me because reading (most) articles, it's like "Holy crap! That's where the conservative intellectuals have been hiding! Sane people with actual principles who reject dropping those principles for cheap populist policy wins!" and nobody in the party is paying them any attention. I disagree with many of their fundamental ideas, because they are still very conservative, but their big thing is rejecting the kneejerk populism that's wrecking the GOP and I can absolutely respect that. But again, nobody who needs to listen to them is listening, and they're pretty much completely disregarded as RINOs.
posted by jason_steakums at 9:38 AM on October 11, 2013 [5 favorites]

they're pretty much completely disregarded as RINOs

This is exactly why the R party base has been shrinking, the intellectual support for the R party positions has been fading away, and so many R congresspeople are currently launched - with enthusiasm! - on a politically suicidal course. Anyone who talks sense is drummed out to the tune of the RINO epithet.

I remain interested in whether the party will die over the long term because national demographics make it inevitable or over the short term because they actually do crash our economy. Now that I've been an ex-R for over 20 years, I have lost any optimism for the idea that the party will figure out this is all craziness and become a big tent party again.
posted by bearwife at 11:56 AM on October 11, 2013

Maybe Nate's in on the rope-a-dope strategy. "Hey, GOP, there's nothing to worry about. Just jump off the cliff, and you'll be heroes! I guarantee a soft landing."
posted by No Robots at 11:58 AM on October 11, 2013

Well, for those who actually read that Nate Silver all the way through, there are some good points. Particularly the last one he makes: the fact that the conservatives have moved to the right while liberals have stayed pretty homogeneous is hard to dispute, I think.
posted by koeselitz at 12:15 PM on October 11, 2013

more GOP house seats at risk to generic Democrats.

Turning 'generic Democrats' into electable candidates is the hard part. In 2012, with Obama's coattails, it was damned hard to find D's wishing to bother.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:41 PM on October 11, 2013

...and Nate Silver doesn't trust PPP, even after its 2012 success rate.
posted by oneswellfoop at 12:41 PM on October 11, 2013

Perhaps what is happening to the GOP now is the culmination of five decades Goldwater conservatism built through the massive conservative media engine and grassroots organizations like the Young Republicans - and a little blow-back from the Southern Strategy as the racists and religious nuts rounded up forty years ago have actually taken over the party. But it is still kind of a mystery to me how American ultra-conservatism ever became has become so popular.

The Conservative 1960s

TURNING RIGHT IN THE SIXTIES: The Conservative Capture of the GOP

...Americans are still struggling to understand the rise of modern American conservatism. Much of this is the fault of scholars and journalists. Very little has been written about the rise of the right in the 1960s. From today's vantage point, this is arguably the most significant development of that decade...

BRENNAN effectively addresses one of the central questions in modern American politics: how conservatism transformed itself from an obscure fringe movement into one of the most powerful political forces in the country.
[...]
For much of the century wealthy easterners had controlled the Republican Party, but in the postwar years a growing number of businessmen and political leaders from the Sunbelt, many of whom had prospered in the postwar industrial boom, began playing a greater role in national politics. Stressing individual initiative, free enterprise, and a militant anti-communism, conservatives formed a variety of single-interest groups to challenge the ideas and programs of the liberal eastern establishment.
[...]
AT the beginning of the 1960s conservatives were in a better position than at any time since the 1930s to challenge moderate Republicans for control of the party. But large obstacles remained. Not only were conservatives widely viewed as wild-eyed fanatics but they squabbled among themselves, had trouble articulating a positive program of reform, had few grassroots organizations, and lacked the funding to make the movement a serious political force.

The year 1960, though, brought a turning point for the conservative movement. That year Barry Goldwater published The Conscience of a Conservative. Generally dismissed in the national media, the book stands today as one of the most important political tracts in modern American history.

...The expansion of the welfare state, he wrote, was an unfortunate and dangerous development that undermined individual freedom. Suggesting that New Deal liberalism marked the first step on the road to totalitarianism, Goldwater argued that government should be removed from most areas of American life. Yet he was no strict libertarian. Appealing to those on the right who longed to recapture lost certitudes, he argued that the state had a duty to maintain order and promote virtue.
[...]
But perhaps the greatest achievement of Goldwater's book--and the reason for its startling success with the right--was that it gave conservatives, for the first time, a blueprint for translating their ideas into political action.
[...]
REPUBLICAN Party leaders, however, ignored the "Goldwater boomlet." ... Nixon met with Nelson Rockefeller, the governor of New York, and agreed to change the party platform to win moderate-Republican support. Conservatives were outraged, referring to the pact, in Goldwater's words, as the "Munich of the Republican Party."

A few days later, at the Republican National Convention, an angry Goldwater called on conservatives to "grow up" and take control of the party. And that, according to Brennan, is exactly what they set out to do ... conservatives believed that Goldwater's popularity, the rise of a conservative press, and the growing strength of conservative youth groups boded well for the future.

posted by Golden Eternity at 4:11 PM on October 11, 2013 [3 favorites]

Better reading, from the Saul Alinsky wikipedia, which I just ended up reading in it's entirety because some right-wing blowhard mentioned him disparagingly.

Alinsky described his plans for 1972 to begin to organize the white middle class across America, and the necessity of that project. He believed that what President Richard Nixon and Vice-President Spiro Agnew then called "The Silent Majority" was living in frustration and despair, worried about their future, and ripe for a turn to radical social change, to become politically active citizens. He feared the middle class could be driven to a right-wing viewpoint, "making them ripe for the plucking by some guy on horseback promising a return to the vanished verities of yesterday."[4] His stated motive: "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."

Saul Alinsky wikipedia entry

Man, I wish someone had pointed me towards this before (yes, this is new to me). This guy might be my hero forever in regards to American politics. He fucking had this shit down.

His death at 63 is a shame, as if he had been able to work on organizing the white middle class in the early 70's, Reaganism may never have happened. Instead, we have lost 40+ years of ground in messaging and convincing "regular American" who overwhelmingly identify as socially liberal and independants, that the conservative ideology is bunk. Fuck.
posted by daq at 4:32 PM on October 11, 2013

To say that the Republicans made a major shift to the right ignored the fact that in the last thirty years everybody made a major shift to the right. Current Democrats would be considered Republicans in the 1970s, and likewise in Europe would be considered conservatives. The Republicans would be considered right wing nutcases.

I like to think that things will eventually shift back, but add long as libertarianism exists, that probably won't happen. Forty years from now Democrats will probably be considered socialistic for not advocating voluntary slavery and the return of whipping.
posted by happyroach at 8:07 PM on October 11, 2013 [1 favorite]

happyroach: “To say that the Republicans made a major shift to the right ignored the fact that in the last thirty years everybody made a major shift to the right. Current Democrats would be considered Republicans in the 1970s, and likewise in Europe would be considered conservatives. The Republicans would be considered right wing nutcases.”

This strikes me as very incorrect. Thirty years ago in Europe, the idea that European nations should be racially pure was practically mainstream; some places, it still is. And most Democrats felt uncomfortable with miscegenation and thought homosexuality was maybe okay for some people but those people shouldn't do that in public, much less (heaven forfend!) get married, which wasn't even something almost anybody mentioned in seriousness. Tipper Gore was a Democratic phenomenon – yes, that's right, in the 1990s there was a contingent of honest-to-god Democrats that were totally down with censoring music and forcing record companies to slap warning labels on whatever they deemed offensive in the name of "family values," which was what everybody worried about most back then. The Solid South was still there, if waning; there were plenty of newly-minted Republicans who cursed the memory of Lyndon Johnson for deserting their cause.

And that was the Democrats! Plenty of Republicans, if not most Republicans, were totally uncomfortable with all non-whites, regarded society as their birthright as white people, felt fine talking about "those people" all the time and about how when they move in the property values go down and they're taking all our jobs and blah blah blah. Many people still grumbed that Lincoln was a tyrannical bastard, that MLK was an uppity dolt, and all the other things.

I mean: this is the thing. The modern right may not understand itself wholly, but it's actually improved a good deal over the last fifty years. The political landscape in the United States over the past century can largely be traced to the reaction people had to the Civil War; in 1960, the right was largely populated by a not-insignificant faction that believed that the Union was wrong, that "states' rights" were the central issue in the United States, that blacks could not be trusted as citizens, and that it had all been a massive mistake. This faction was bent on turning back the clock, spreading segregation, standing against diversity and unity and progress at each and every turn.

The very significant shift that's occurred in the last fifty years on the right is that the Solid South conservative Democrats (and then Republicans) have died off and been replaced by conservatives who have actually moved forward. This was already beginning in the 1960s – from the Goldwater conservatives on one side, from the neo-conservatives on the other. Believe it or not, the libertarians represented a step forward for the right; they represented a step away from the social conservatives, from dodgy ideas about racial segregation and about how censorship and repression were okay as long as they were in the name of "family values." Now, MLK is actually a hero to the right – they actually try to claim him as a Republican. Just that fact alone is a huge step forward.

If you want a good scholarly overview of this change, there's a lot in this paper by a professor I'm working with right now – "Beyond Originalism: Conservative Declarationism and Constitutional Redemption."
posted by koeselitz at 12:02 AM on October 12, 2013 [5 favorites]

Meanwhile: How ugly was the religious right “Values Voter” conference in DC today? This ugly.
posted by Artw at 3:34 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]

Back when I lived down the street from the Duggars, I seriously considered starting a blog called Duggar Watch to publicize all the completely idiotic things Jim Bob says.
posted by wierdo at 3:45 PM on October 12, 2013

Ugh. Have AFA and NOM been labeled hate groups yet? They've been sending envoys to Russia for the last couple months to rile up the people beating GLBT people on the streets and give attaboys to Putin and the Orthodox leaders for allowing it.
posted by zombieflanders at 3:55 PM on October 12, 2013 [2 favorites]

NOM has, by the SLPC. We're up against them in California over some anti-trans shit they're trying to run.
posted by klangklangston at 4:04 PM on October 12, 2013 [1 favorite]

zombieflanders: "They've been sending envoys to Russia for the last couple months to rile up the people beating GLBT people on the streets and give attaboys to Putin and the Orthodox leaders for allowing it."

You have got to be kidding. I mean, I know you're not, but every time I think these people can't go to new lows, I learn something even more disturbing. Do you have any links?
posted by wierdo at 4:12 PM on October 12, 2013

RightWingWatch has a bunch of stuff. Their "Globalizing Homophobia" series is a good place to start. Pretty much everything about Bryan Fischer and/or AFA; or Brian Brown and/or NOM that deals with Russia has something incredibly hateful in it.
posted by zombieflanders at 5:25 AM on October 13, 2013

False equivalence: how 'balance' makes the media dangerously dumb
posted by Artw at 9:25 AM on October 13, 2013 [5 favorites]

For the GOP, rightward ho!
posted by Artw at 3:53 PM on October 13, 2013

So is someone going to tidy up after that lot at the WWII memorial or will it just be trashed for the duration?
posted by Artw at 4:03 PM on October 13, 2013

It's a long thread, and I may have missed it, but is there evidence that the WWII memorial is currently trashed?
posted by corb at 4:49 AM on October 14, 2013

If nobody cleaned up after the people who turned up at the GOPs request then it will be trashed, that being what crowds do to areas when nobody cleans up after them.
posted by Artw at 4:52 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

It's certainly what shitty crowds do to areas when no one cleans up after them, but good crowds clean up after themselves or have designated people tasked with it (see: veterans, some Occupy cities, etc).
posted by corb at 4:56 AM on October 14, 2013

good crowds clean up after themselves or have designated people tasked with it

... some protesters carried metal barricades that look like bicycle racks from the memorial to the White House and stacked them up outside the gates, confronting police in riot gear.

Do you think that crowd put the barricades back after they moved them? I don't see any evidence that this Cruz/Palin-helmed, Confederate-flag-waving charade was a "good crowd." When guys like Larry Klayman are screaming for the President to "leave town, to get up, to put the Quran down, to get up off his knees, and to figuratively come out with his hands up" it isn't a "good crowd," it's a mob scene.

Where's Megan McArdle and her two-by-fours when she's needed most?
posted by octobersurprise at 6:53 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Moving barricades could and has well be seen in the past as a political statement (again see Occupy) and I wouldn't think less of any group for moving barricades, whatever their causes (I'd even argue protected speech, though I'm sure DC's finest strongly disagree with me). But as a seasoned protest organizer myself, I'd argue that you can't tell someone's personal cleanliness habits, or the orderly nature of the protest, or the responsibility of the group staging it, or their reverence for the area in question, from the type or loudness of the rhetoric. I've staged protests that deliberately left a historic or memorial area cleaner than we found it, and I've also staged protests where you pay a fee for the park permit, it is understood to cover the cost of cleanup, and the site is not special in any way.

If I were to wager, I'd say it's likely that the WWII memorial will be left pretty clean, especially if Patriot Guard members are riding (and they usually are, for protests near memorials in DC) and the National Mall will be trashed, but it's really anyone's game. Patriot Guard riders are technically to protect only actual memorial services of fallen soldiers from protests (like Westboro Baptist Church), but a smaller subset also tend to protect the national memorials from protest damage and litter. (Largely conservative and thinking that leftleaning groups would desecrate, but I imagine the instincts might kick in.)
posted by corb at 7:10 AM on October 14, 2013

corb: “But as a seasoned protest organizer myself, I'd argue that you can't tell someone's personal cleanliness habits, or the orderly nature of the protest, or the responsibility of the group staging it, or their reverence for the area in question, from the type or loudness of the rhetoric. I've staged protests that deliberately left a historic or memorial area cleaner than we found it, and I've also staged protests where you pay a fee for the park permit, it is understood to cover the cost of cleanup, and the site is not special in any way.”

Have you been to many rallies that were nothing but political stunts put on by unpopular politicians clawing for publicity? Because that's what this appears to be. And they complained about Obama's cynical use of children in his anti-gun photo ops – this is just as bad. "Drag some old Vets out, we'll shove 'em out front and make a speech. Brilliant." They've got footage for years and years of political ads now.

And my own personal experience with exploitative politician-run rallies is that they don't tend to clean up very well. But yours may be different; I'm not sure.
posted by koeselitz at 8:38 AM on October 14, 2013

Well I suppose sooner or later someone will go take a look.

I'm kind of hoping they actually did think of the optics and tidy up after themselves.

I think the thing about this that is the weirdest for me is that in the UK one of the big things the working classes got out of having fought in WWII was the National Health Service. Seeing people using WWII used as a rallying cry for taking healthcare away from people just seems beyond bizarre.
posted by Artw at 8:52 AM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

It seems like there were actually not enough people to really generate trash, and I have to give Glenn Beck credit for actually being photographed picking up garbage on the Mall. That said, his past events have left the Mall enormously gross, and leaving the barricades at the White House is kind of a jerk move. (Seriously, not everyone visiting the monuments at night is going to be a kindly veteran. Like that time someone splashed green paint over the Lincoln in, oh, the last three months.)
posted by jetlagaddict at 8:58 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

Tea Party conservatives occupy the National Mall to blame everybody else for the government shutdown.

Especially weird are people dressed as slaveowners waving confederate flags comparing not getting their way over ACA to slavery. One suspects about the only young they wouldn't compare to slavery is anything to do with actual historical slavery.

Also bringing a confederate flag to a WWII seems about one step off from bringing a Swastika, but maybe that's just me.
posted by Artw at 9:04 AM on October 14, 2013 [8 favorites]

I think the thing about this that is the weirdest for me is that in the UK one of the big things the working classes got out of having fought in WWII was the National Health Service. Seeing people using WWII used as a rallying cry for taking healthcare away from people just seems beyond bizarre.

That is really interesting, artw, whereas here, veterans got the Montgomery GI Bill and VA loans - every veteran could go to college and own a house. It would be interesting to figure out why the parallel evolutions went so differently. If I were guessing, it might have to do with Britain being actually bombed, civilians also? But hard to say, really.

Seriously, not everyone visiting the monuments at night is going to be a kindly veteran.

Speaking purely from a pragmatic/tactical standpoint, that's about the only thing they could do, and it winds up better for them anyway. Either:

1) They leave the barricades down and leave a token presence, nothing happens and they get to claim responsibility OR they get to stop someone in the act and blah hero blah (that's what I would do, personally)

2) They leave the barricades down and leave no presence, nothing happens and they get to claim the Park Service was overreacting to nothing.

3) They leave the barricades down and vandalism happens (honestly very low probability, there are easier targets), they get to blame it on their unAmerican lefty opponents, because "everyone knows that's who would vandalize, by God, and it's a shame we can't all respect veterans like I, Politician McPolitian, do. I find it shameful the Obama administration can't consider the plight of those who served enough to accept my generous bill funding all veteran matters, it is because they hate America."
posted by corb at 9:16 AM on October 14, 2013

Honestly, I'm not as worried about vandalism as I am about people sleeping/eating/peeing/leaving trash-- tourist stuff that people see as benign that has a cumulatively bad effect.
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:25 AM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

corb: “They leave the barricades down and vandalism happens (honestly very low probability, there are easier targets)”

I'm honestly wondering how we make this assessment; who knows whether vandalism is likely? Monuments in DC have been vandalized, and recently, within the past few months. It was about three months ago that somebody splashed the Lincoln Monument with blue paint, right? But then I obviously don't live in DC, so I don't know exactly.
posted by koeselitz at 9:42 AM on October 14, 2013

bringing a confederate flag to a WWII seems about one step off from bringing a Swastika

Either is an appropriate decoration for a mob cheering on the threatened destruction of the US government.

I wonder how many of these attendees own the Patriot Survival Plan video which warns of a "financial Hiroshima" [that is] "barreling down on us like a freight train in just 10 months or less ..."
posted by octobersurprise at 10:02 AM on October 14, 2013

“They leave the barricades down and vandalism happens (honestly very low probability, there are easier targets)”

If I lived in DC, I'd probably do it myself just to get the Tea Party assholes to be all 'WHY ARENT THESE PLACES BEING PROTECTED'.
posted by jacalata at 10:53 AM on October 14, 2013

(and besides, judging from the graffiti I see on bridges, tall buildings, etc - people aren't going for 'the easiest target' in a lot of cases anyway)
posted by jacalata at 10:54 AM on October 14, 2013

Million Vet March organizers condemn Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Confederate Flag Guy, Obama's Quran Guy, et al unnamed people who took advantage to "hijack the narrative for political gain."
posted by zombieflanders at 12:54 PM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]

The Grave Robbers In Congress

It is not merely unseemly, but positively obscene for people like Ted Cruz, and Mike Lee, and the unspeakable Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods to use surviving World War II veterans to advance a political agenda that would make the lives of those veterans immeasurably worse. It is obscene for them to use old, brave men as camouflage for bigotry and nonsense. It is obscene for them to borrow courage that never would find in themselves and to gussy it up in Confederate flags and trot it out as an an audience for crackpots like Larry Klayman. It is obscene for them to claim for themselves the dead of Normandy, and the Bulge, and Okinawa, and Saipan. It is obscene for them to try to purify their own vandalism in worthier blood than flows in their veins.
...
The American Right has never looked as fundamentally reckless and inhumane as it did when it attempted to burglarize heroism over the weekend. All the chickenhawks came home to roost, for sure. To see Princess Dumbass there, one hand on her heart while the other one very likely was picking pockets, attempting to wrap herself in the sacrifice of so many people, living and dead, when the hardest thing she's ever done in her life is quit her job halfway through doing it, is to see a kind of ghastly kind of historical vampirism. It takes a special lack of conscience to grift the graves of the honored dead. It's enough to make you root very hard for the Curse Of The Pharaohs. My father doesn't need the intercession of these delusional creatures. On his behalf, I say, in god's name, walk away from decent people in shame.

posted by tonycpsu at 1:44 PM on October 14, 2013 [14 favorites]

We feel disheartened that some would seek to hijack the narrative for political gain. The core principle is about all Americans honoring Veterans in a peaceful and apolitical manner.

From the petition, linked from that page:

We demand that the memorials be re-opened, and that Congress introduce
legislation forbidding the shutdown of these memorials during any budget
disputes.

Not apolitical.
posted by Rykey at 2:30 PM on October 14, 2013

Okay Charlie Pierce, I'm with you in spirit and I agree it is bordering on obscene to use honorable people for your political gain, but what is with this "Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods" nonsense? You don't use this gendered language with Ted Cruz and Mike Lee who are arguably much more responsible for this whole fiasco. I understand you're upset, but do better please.

Also I don't want to quibble, but you describe your father as being very conservative, and then note that he is dead so you will speak for him. It doesn't sound like a sure thing, from what you describe, that your father would agree with you here, in which case you are coming scarily close to doing what you accuse the Right of doing: appropriating the honorable deeds of good people for your own political purposes.

Hey I'm a leftie liberal fully in favor of Obamacare who hopes the Democrats will stick to their principles in negotiating out of the shutdown, but in conclusion, wtf?
posted by onlyconnect at 2:47 PM on October 14, 2013 [2 favorites]

Motion ti rename Cruz to "Prince Dumbfuck".

...Of wherever, I guess.
posted by Artw at 2:52 PM on October 14, 2013

"Okay Charlie Pierce, I'm with you in spirit and I agree it is bordering on obscene to use honorable people for your political gain, but what is with this "Princess Dumbass of the Northwoods" nonsense? You don't use this gendered language with Ted Cruz and Mike Lee who are arguably much more responsible for this whole fiasco. I understand you're upset, but do better please."

It's a name that I can't find definitive sourcing for — I assume that it originated with Pierce — that he's been using for well over three years, along with C-Plus Augustus for Bush, Sen. Huckleberry Closetcase for Lindsay Graham, Dancin' Dave for David Gergen, and a passel of other copronyms. Ted Cruz has intermittently been Tailgunner Ted, but both he and Mike Lee are too new to have consistent nicknames yet.
posted by klangklangston at 3:30 PM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]

I've been having a long conversation with a good friend about Cruz and how he actually treats veterans vs how he claims to treat veterans. This friend is former Army and has a ton of friends who are both active and retired.

Anyhow, his perception is that Obama lost these former and current military folks forever way back when he said that thing about people clinging to "guns and religion." My friend feels that the concept of Civil Religion is largely at play here.

In essence, regardless of what Obama or Cruz actually do, Cruz appears to be defending the religious iconography of the American Civil Religion. It doesn't matter if his actions actively harm those who adhere to this religion provided he says the right things and appears in the right places. Similarly, Obama could guarantee that every veteran gets a million dollars a year and they would still be suspicious of him because he's said and done things that suggest he's not really a supporter of the American Civil Religion - notably the "clinging to their guns and religion" thing (my friend says that pops up all the time among his pro-Cruz friends).

Now, my dad is a fairly liberal Vietnam war veteran and has voted reliably Democrat since at least the 80's, so I know all (or even most) veterans aren't reactionary. Indeed, I'm a good deal more optimistic than my friend, who says he believes there are enough active and retired military members who fears that Obama has specifically betrayed them that "even if they resolve this crisis, this is not going to end well."
posted by Joey Michaels at 3:34 PM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]

Klang, bless you for introducing me to the term copronym. I so enjoy learning new phrases and words, and after parsing so many depressing revelations initially unearthed in this thread, discovering something new that is only tangentially related (though 100% germane) to Congress's current Brobdingnagian political buffoonery has been a genuine delight.
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 4:28 PM on October 14, 2013 [3 favorites]

Dancin' Dave for David Gergen

I think "Dancin' Dave" is David Gregory. Gergen is "The American Polonius."
posted by homunculus at 4:38 PM on October 14, 2013 [5 favorites]

You're right; I get my Daves mixed up.
posted by klangklangston at 5:19 PM on October 14, 2013

These are the Daves I know.
posted by Joey Michaels at 5:37 PM on October 14, 2013 [8 favorites]

(David Gregory dancing is a... thing... (e.g., here at 1:10 and here at 1:18), but the example that is permanently etched on my brain is him alongside "M.C. Rove." WARNING: cannot be unseen.)
posted by argonauta at 5:47 PM on October 14, 2013

Government shutdown unleashes racism

Protesters marched through the streets of Washington on Sunday with a Confederate flag and then a protester lounged against the White House fence with one. Displaying the Confederate flag in front of a home occupied by a black family was meant to send a particular, and particularly repellent, message.

There were other signs of our descent. Remember Samuel Wurzelbacher? Known as “Joe the Plumber,” he was selected by John McCain as his presidential campaign mascot in 2008 with the same care McCain used to select Sarah Palin.

Over the weekend, Wurzelbacher posted an article on his blog titled: “America Needs a White Republican President.”

“Admit it,” the article said. “You want a white Republican president again. Wanting a white Republican president doesn’t make you racist, it just makes you American.”

posted by Golden Eternity at 9:15 PM on October 14, 2013 [1 favorite]

OK, so that quote from Joe the Plumber's blog really breads my Chicken McNugget. I did a little bit of research on it and found this Daily Mail article (because I don't want to link Joe's blog). Mr. The Plumber didn't write the article himself - he copied and pasted it from an African American Tea Party Activist named Kevin Jackson's site. Furthermore, Joe is defending the article as not racist because it was written by a black guy about a black guy.

Look, maybe its just because I grew up with this helpful PSA, but it doesn't matter what race you are. If you are expressing preference for a candidate because of the color of his or her skin, you are ipso facto being racist. Expressing preference for one ethnicity over another is dictionary definition racist. This should not be an issue for debate.

Words have meaning. This is not Middle Earth where you can slap an "ar" before a word and claim you're speaking in Adûnaic.
posted by Joey Michaels at 12:31 AM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]

Similarly, Obama could guarantee that every veteran gets a million dollars a year and they would still be suspicious of him because he's said and done things that suggest he's not really a supporter of the American Civil Religion - notably the "clinging to their guns and religion" thing (my friend says that pops up all the time among his pro-Cruz friends).

I think it's a little more complex than that - you're right, but from a different position.

Among the tenets of the "American Civil Religion" is the Cult of the Soldier. It states that soldiers are brave and good and noble, protecting our country from harm, and so we, in turn, give to them the riches they have earned by their sacrifice. And these are special riches, not given to any other but the holies of the Soldier-Cult, the soldiers and the veterans.

And that cult, that facet of the Civil Religion, is the exact facet that Obama does not embrace, and seems to have some distaste for. He does not seem to value soldiers as more holy than anyone else, and he does not believe in the idea of rewarding the soldiers and veterans with these riches which traditionally and religiously have been apportioned for them. Mind you, I am not sure whether other presidents really believe it or are just making mouth motions, but Obama doesn't even bother pretending. He will not even falsely worship at the altar of that cult.

Obama, to give him his due, I think genuinely wants to aid the socioeconomic class that veterans, by and large, are a part of. He wants to help the larger set, and thus by doing so, help the subset of veterans. What he doesn't understand is that it will not win him any brownie points to do so - because this is a civil religion, as you say, it has no effect unless you worship at the altar. Only helping the specific subset of veterans, as a stated reward, with the caveat of "we owe you more than this but this will have to do for now," will get him veteran cred. And worse, he does things like taking away privileges from the soldier-cult in order to spread them more evenly throughout the population.

This cult, incidentally, are what Cruz and others understand is a part of the Civil Religion and it must be heeded. The temple must have its due. So when things like the veterans memorial issues come up, or funding for the VA, those who understand the civil religion hasten to say, "Yes, we are doing this thing, but veterans are special and holy and must be exempted. We understand that there are things we would like more, but these things are sacred and cannot be touched by our mortal political hands." While the Obamas of the world refuse to do so. The Democrats deny special exemptions for veterans - both in funding bills and in opening war memorials - and so identify themselves as unbelievers. And in part, that is what these challenges are designed to do - to identify the unbelievers to the masses, for the faithful who notice such things.

You're right about the "guns and religion" piece, but really, that's just the most identifiable. This happens in small increments, every day.
posted by corb at 1:32 AM on October 15, 2013 [15 favorites]

Best thing about those Holy Soldiers? You can trot out their abstract likenesses to lend your political arguments an unassailable "Don't dare question this truism because Heroes" suit of armor, but not have to actually support the actual soldiers with high-quality services and a guarantee of a certain standard of living.
posted by Rykey at 5:45 AM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]

Apparently Senate leaders are close to having a deal to end the shutdown and raise the debt limit: "The emerging agreement would extend the Treasury Department’s borrowing authority until Feb. 7, reopen the government and fund federal agencies through mid-January, according to aides and lawmakers familiar with the negotiations."

It's not ideal, but it's definitely not as bad as it could have been. I hope it works.
posted by troika at 6:12 AM on October 15, 2013

his perception is that Obama lost these former and current military folks forever way back when he said that thing about people clinging to "guns and religion." My friend feels that the concept of Civil Religion is largely at play here.

I don't doubt that there are military and ex-military people who believe this sort of thing, but Obama's election and re-election—absent data to the contrary—would seem to refute any notion that the US military is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the cultural right, regardless of how much some people want that to be the case.

What he doesn't understand is that it will not win him any brownie points to do so - because this is a civil religion, as you say, it has no effect unless you worship at the altar. Only helping the specific subset of veterans, as a stated reward, with the caveat of "we owe you more than this but this will have to do for now," will get him veteran cred ... worse, he does things like taking away privileges from the soldier-cult in order to spread them more evenly throughout the population.

Likewise, I'd like to think that my fellow citizen soldiers are too smart and cynical to swallow all of this priestly mumbo jumbo. IME, they are and should be. As I'm sure you're aware, it's precisely why the American founders deprecated professional armies.
posted by octobersurprise at 6:57 AM on October 15, 2013 [2 favorites]

Only 43.8 Percent of Military Identify As Republican, Down From 56 Percent In 2005
posted by madamjujujive at 7:16 AM on October 15, 2013 [5 favorites]

Wow! Only 9.7% identify as Democrats. Very surprising!

Apparently the sequester cuts for 15 January could "slice another $20 billion out of agency budgets, primarily from the Pentagon." :)
posted by jeffburdges at 7:38 AM on October 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

Those results were taken from a non-representative, non-random sample. If it were a crazy narrow population segment, I could see that as the only option for a survey. But it wasn't. Respondents were self-selected from whoever the Military Times decided to send surveys.

I gave up on Military Times surveys meaning anydamnthing in 2004, when a nonzero percentage of servicemembers (I forget whether it was 2 percent or 8 percent, but somewhere in the single digits) said that George W. Bush's military service (the... let's say "casual" nature of which had already been widely publicized) made them more likely to vote for him.

More likely.

Let me say that again. Some servicemembers in a Military Times poll claimed that they were more likely to vote for George W. Bush based on his experience in the Texas Air National Guard -- which, regardless of whether you believe in the famous memo that cost Dan Rather his job, was undeniably not a Formative Experience in any sense of the words. That's not even "Well, 34 percent of people think Bigfoot exists." That's just willfully fucking with the poll questions.
posted by Etrigan at 8:20 AM on October 15, 2013 [7 favorites]

Is there a post on all the corruption that fucked up Healthcare.gov yet?
Buried in the Healthcare.gov source: "No Expectation of Privacy"
posted by jeffburdges at 10:29 AM on October 15, 2013

Is there a post on all the corruption that fucked up Healthcare.gov yet?
Buried in the Healthcare.gov source: "No Expectation of Privacy"

I'd be a bit more worried about this if the only source wasn't The Weekly Standard (and if it wasn't accompanied by this ad.)
posted by showbiz_liz at 10:38 AM on October 15, 2013 [4 favorites]

Likewise, I'd like to think that my fellow citizen soldiers are too smart and cynical to swallow all of this priestly mumbo jumbo.

For clarity - do you mean "my fellow citizens, who are soldiers" or "my fellow soldiers, who are citizens?"

Either way, however, I will note that religions, by their very nature, are not things that are based on rationality but on myth, faith, and belief. That doesn't mean people who participate in a religion are dumb and naive, it just means they believe differently.
posted by corb at 12:47 PM on October 15, 2013

Buried in the Healthcare.gov source: "No Expectation of Privacy"

Government website boilerplate.
posted by empath at 3:47 PM on October 15, 2013 [3 favorites]

For clarity - do you mean "my fellow citizens, who are soldiers" or "my fellow soldiers, who are citizens?"

The former. It's clumsy phrasing, true.

That doesn't mean people who participate in a religion are dumb and naive, it just means they believe differently.

A) Unless you are asserting that the military is or should be "a religion," I have no idea why you are even invoking religion here or what it has to do with anything. B) I'm pretty sure you don't think "differently" is the sole criterion for assessing a belief's validity or truthfulness. (Or, for that matter, even it's usefulness.)
posted by octobersurprise at 9:40 AM on October 16, 2013

Senate has deal on shutdown, debt
posted by Artw at 10:20 AM on October 16, 2013

Republicans Shut Down the Government for Nothing
posted by Artw at 10:41 AM on October 16, 2013 [4 favorites]

The question I'm left wondering is how do we hold these politicians responsible for this exercise in insanity?
posted by inertia at 11:08 AM on October 16, 2013 [5 favorites]

I'm rather hoping for the utter obliteration of anyone associated with it come 2014. But that may be assuming a longer memory and greater sense than Americans have.

Oh, and no more concessions driven by this shit ever.
posted by Artw at 11:13 AM on October 16, 2013 [3 favorites]

From the Start, Signs of Trouble at Health Portal

I posted this in the other thread, but it really sounds a lot more dire for healthcare.gov than I might have originally thought.
posted by zixyer at 2:55 PM on October 16, 2013 [1 favorite]

Buried in the Healthcare.gov source: "No Expectation of Privacy"

It seems unlikely that the government could get a new system past auditors with terms that — as described — violate existing HIPAA statutes on information security. Perhaps the source boilerplate is mistaken, or the person quoting it doesn't really understand what he or she is quoting.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 3:41 PM on October 16, 2013

Forget it. The Republicans responsible won't pay a price because their districts are so heavily gerrymandered. They could set fire to kittens on the Capitol steps and get re-elected. And anyway, by the time re-election comes around, most people will have forgotten about this drama.

Maybe, maybe not. One of the ways gerrymandering happens is to secure a given district, sure, but other times it happens to expand control over multiple districts. So you'll have the democrats in a tight knot that's like +40D, and Republicans spread over multiple districts that are only +7 R, and that's a point where a few points of base shift can actually cost them everything.
posted by kafziel at 4:03 PM on October 16, 2013 [7 favorites]

Someone should really create a new thread that is just about the massive fuck-up that is healthcare.gov.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:51 AM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]

Elementary Penguin, be the ~~change~~ FPP you want in the world.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 12:55 PM on October 17, 2013 [2 favorites]

There's this one.
posted by Artw at 1:08 PM on October 17, 2013 [1 favorite]

That's what I'm looking for! Thanks, ArtW.
posted by Elementary Penguin at 2:20 PM on October 17, 2013

re: Goldwater and the 1960s, here's Rick Perlstein talking about his book Before The Storm: Barry Goldwater and the Unmaking of the American Consensus (transcript)

...the second half of the book is a blow-by-blow account of the 1964 presidential election, all the drama therein. And what happens in the first half is I tell kind of two intertwined stories. The one is the rise of the conservative movement from something that was really marginal in American politics in the '50s to a movement that had basically taken over its own political party, the Republicans, by 1964. The other kind of braid in the argument is how America changed in the process, how America changed from a country of what I would call a consensus, or what at least prominent people believed was consensus, which most people agreed with each other on the broad goals of society, on the broadest kind of political questions, to one that we're more familiar with when we think about the '60s, in which the nation is one that's divided against itself...

Well, it's the difference between a political campaign and a political crusade. Conservatism was a crusade. It was a struggle for the soul of Western civilization. And though Lyndon Johnson--going back to those pundits in the beginning, Lyndon Johnson might have had a mile wide of popularity, but it really was ultimately an inch deep, whereas people would send Goldwater telegrams, you know, as he was, you know, preparing for the convention. You know, 'I'd give my marrow, my bones for you. You know, I'll--I'll stand by you like a soldier in combat.' These were people who believed that liberalism had to be stopped, that we needed to take a firm, belligerent stand against the Soviet Union. We hadn't talked about that. And didn't think it was just a matter of personal preference, but a--literally, a matter of lit--matter of the survival of Western civilization. If you believe that, you have no problem licking a couple of envelopes to help the cause...

I respect conservatives. But the main way I respect them is as political strategists and technicians and as people who had the courage to break out of kind of centrism and timid politics and fight for what they believe. I mean, I argued that this was a '60s movement. What that means is that like the new left that came along later, these were people who were taking risks for what they believed in, weren't afraid to break a few eggs in the process. And, you know, my personal opinion is, you know, we could use a little more of that these days.

also btw...
-Thinking Like a Conservative (Part One): Mass Shootings and Gun Control
-Thinking Like a Conservative (Part Two): Biding Time on Voting Rights
-Thinking Like a Conservative (Part Three): On Shutting Down Government
-Thinking Like a Conservative (Part Four): Goalpost-Moving
posted by kliuless at 4:59 PM on October 22, 2013 [6 favorites]

OK, this is freaking bizarre - GOP wanted John McAfee to check out problems with healthcare portal? And this is NOT an onion story. Holy crap, hilarious.

According to CNBC, McAfee never actually spoke with the committee. McAfee explained to Jones [that would be Alex Jones] that he turned the request down because the committee wanted to do the briefing over the phone.
posted by madamjujujive at 6:11 PM on October 22, 2013 [3 favorites]

In other shutdown-related trucker news:

“If I was your political broker, my advice would be that you sell your Republican shares and buy the Democrats,” Bill Graves, the chief executive officer of the American Trucking Associations, said at the group’s annual convention in Orlando, Florida.
posted by jason_steakums at 6:39 PM on October 22, 2013 [1 favorite]

David Brooks on ABC's Meet the press Regarding Senator Cruz and Senator Lee:

"(President) Dwight Eisenhower had a phrase about a senator: 'He proves that there's no ultimate answer to how dumb a person can be'"
posted by Golden Eternity at 9:10 PM on October 22, 2013 [2 favorites]

I have high anxiety that that Obama will give up the Keystone Pipeline as a way of getting this over with.

X-Ray of a Flagging Presidency: Will Obama Block the Keystone Pipeline or Just Keep Bending?
posted by homunculus at 9:32 PM on October 28, 2013 [1 favorite]

« Older Fight For Your Right To Octobong | What could possibly top Valve's announcement of... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

"October is a fine and dangerous season in America" October 1, 2013 4:07 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

"October is a fine and dangerous season in America"
October 1, 2013 4:07 PM Subscribe