Monday, September 24, 2018
Rush Limbaugh just read the riot act to Chuck Grassley, telling him Republicans had better vote on Kavanaugh
Good! But I doubt Chuck is listening. He's been asleep since September 21st.
Kooky "Macro Tourist" tells us to put aside our political views, uses crabbed Talking Points Memo graph to warn us about Republican federal spending increases
Although the Republicans are supposedly the party of fiscal conservatism, we all know that sort of talk is only for when they are not in power. ... There should be little surprise that under Republican stewardship, the greatest fiscal stimulus in the past decade has been instituted. Not saying if it is good or bad because my opinion is completely irrelevant. ... You would be foolish to ignore the dramatic change in the world’s attitude towards economic policy. “Tight fiscal and easy monetary policy” is being replaced with “easy fiscal and (somewhat) tighter monetary policy”. And ironically enough, the Republican Party under Trump’s “leadership” is at the forefront of this change.
Apparently the guy can't figure out the facts for himself, which show that Trump is projected by the center left Tax Policy Center to be in the same league as Obama through fiscal 2020, not in the Reagan league, not in the Nixon league, not in the Bush 41 league, either. Hell, he's not even projected to make the Bush 43 league, which was bad enough. Spending is going up under Trump, too be sure, but it's a world away from previous Republican administrations.
What really matters for spending is who controls the purse strings, which is Congress. Until Clinton, Republican presidents had to bargain with Democrat Congresses to get what they wanted. That often meant agreeing to big spending bills. The Republican resurgence in Congress under Clinton marked a new era in spending, which comparatively speaking is way down on a compound annual growth rate basis, even under spendthrift Bush 43.
Personally I'm less fearful than I had been of a new spending spree under Trump with Republicans in control of Congress. Trump is adversarial with the Republican Establishment in a way that no Republican president of the past has been. Getting what he wants hasn't been at all easy for this very reason. Republicans are obstructing him no less than Democrats are even as Trump folds like a house of cards on taxes and regulation without getting anything in return, like a wall. At some point he's going to veto something, or go down to electoral defeat.
At any rate, talk of a new dramatic change is simply kooky.
Sunday, September 23, 2018
I just found out my new neighbor is in the bottom 2.88% of the population
He's a fat, white, father of two young girls whose idea of fun is spending the day at the pool, and he's a Twitter follower of Rachel Madcow.
Thank God for carvedilol.
Thank God for carvedilol.
John Brennan is the Democrats' self-admitted communist, James Comey is the Republicans'
Mr. Comey Goes To Washington (New York Magazine, 20 October 2003):
Comey has been savaged by William Safire and lauded by Chuck Schumer; just what kind of Republican is he, anyway? This sets Comey howling again. “I must be doing something right!” he says. “In college, I was left of center, and through a gradual process I found myself more comfortable with a lot of the ideas and approaches the Republicans were using.” He voted for Carter in 1980, but in ’84, “I voted for Reagan—I’d moved from Communist to whatever I am now. I’m not even sure how to characterize myself politically. Maybe at some point, I’ll have to figure it out.”
Dianne Feinstein shouldn't only be censured by the US Senate, California voters should vote for her opponent in November
From the story here:
Regardless of the fate of Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination, the Senate should censure the ranking Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein. Her deception and maneuvering, condemned across the political spectrum, seriously interfered with the Senate’s performance of its constitutional duty to review judicial nominations, and unquestionably has brought the Senate into “dishonor and disrepute,” the standard that governs these matters. As a matter of institutional integrity, the Senate cannot let this wrong go unaddressed. ... Feinstein ... sought to keep her committee from timely and properly investigating an apparently serious charge of misconduct, and is still doing so, even in the face of criticism from all (or most) quarters. ...
As the second-richest member of the Senate, with a net worth of $94 million, Feinstein is presumably above the temptations to which [censured Senators] Dodd, Talmadge, and Durenberger succumbed. She does, however, face a difficult reelection campaign, with a serious enthusiasm gap on her left, the California Democratic party having refused to endorse her bid for a sixth term in office. Her conduct in arranging matters to make her appear the champion of an allegedly abused constituent, and perhaps positioning herself as the woman who sank the Kavanaugh nomination, can only help on that flank. Is a nakedly political motive for senatorial misbehavior any less reprehensible than a financial one?
Maureen Dowd admits Ford is purely political, calls her a woman daring to obstruct a conservative nominee
If Brett Kavanaugh were a liberal nominee, this wouldn't be happening.
From the column here:
But I most dread the rhyming history we are plunged into now: the merciless pummeling of a woman who dares to obstruct the glide path of a conservative Supreme Court nominee.
Woman, still alleged by The Washington Post and Ford to be present at an assault by Kavanaugh, denies being at party or knowing Kavanaugh
That makes four such denials: Brett Kavanaugh, Mark Judge, Patrick J. Smyth and now Leland Keyser.
Here:
"Simply put, Ms. Keyser does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present, with, or without, Dr. Ford," said Howard Walsh, who said he has been "engaged in the limited capacity" of corresponding with the committee on behalf of Keyser.
Walsh's email was in response to a missive from one of the lawyers for the GOP majority staff, which stated: "I understand that you have been identified as an individual who was in attendance at a party that occurred circa 1982 described in a recent Washington Post article."
Ford stated in her letter to Feinstein back in July that there were only five at the assault including herself:
"The assault occurred in a suburban Maryland area home at a gathering that included me and four others."
But the original September 16th Washington Post article does not mention another female present, only boys:
The [therapist's] notes say four boys were involved, a discrepancy Ford says was an error on the therapist’s part. Ford said there were four boys at the party but only two in the room.
The Washington Post, however, and Ford, still acknowledge TODAY the presence of a female, Leland Keyser, which would make the party of five SIX:
As negotiations continued, Leland Keyser, a woman Ford told The Washington Post was present at the party where she alleges Kavanaugh assaulted her, came forward to say she “does not know Mr. Kavanaugh and she has no recollection of ever being at a party or gathering where he was present,” according to an email her lawyer sent to the Senate Judiciary Committee, obtained by The Post. In a brief interview at her home in Silver Spring, Keyser said that she did not recall the party, but that she was close friends with Ford and that she believes Ford’s allegation. Before her name became public, Ford told The Post she did not think Keyser would remember the party because nothing remarkable had happened there, as far as Keyser was aware. Ford has said she did not tell anyone about the alleged assault until 2012.
So how many were there? Ford can't really say, or won't say.
This whole thing smells to high heaven of nothing so much as a political operation, which is proved by the fact of Feinstein's scurrilous behavior in withholding what she knew from the Senate committee since July 30th. Any woman who was really concerned about another woman's sexual assault wouldn't do this. And Ford wouldn't put up with it if she were really concerned about it.
Sexual assault isn't something that can be litigated in the newspapers, let alone in the Judiciary Committee of the US Senate.
Since the statue of limitations has not expired in Montgomery County Maryland, Ford should take her allegations there and file her complaint. If she had anything but politically motivated lawyers that's what they would have told her to do, too.
The Senate should categorically refuse to be the venue for this circus.
And Christine Blasey Ford should put up, or shut up.
Saturday, September 22, 2018
More gas lighting from CNBC on Kavanaugh, averring Kavanaugh is surrounded by harassers
The GOP aide wasn't "for Brett Kavanaugh". The GOP aide wasn't even an "aide for the nomination" since Trump nominated Kavanaugh. No, the aide was the spokesman for Grassley's committee. Kavanaugh had no say whatsoever in who works for Grassley and who doesn't.
Total cheap shot. Total bs. Totally corrupt manipulation of language.
No wonder CNBC closed comments on its articles long ago. They're all like this.
Ford, Dems, media manipulate the public, say she agrees to meet (next Thursday when the deal was Monday)
Grassley's Twitter feed has nothing about this.
Ford says she agrees to meet next Thursday, that's all, and wants to continue the "negotiations" this afternoon.
Total bull!
When Grassley says No they'll attack him again.
Christine Blasey Ford, accuser of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, agrees to Senate testimony about sexual assault claim
Democrats are experts at gas lighting.
Democrats are experts at gas lighting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)