Real Time with Bill Maher on Friday included lawyer and Orthodox Jewish conservative podcaster Ben Shapiro; CNN commentator and former South Carolina state legislator Bakari Sellers; and former Republican House Speaker Kevin McCarthy. In the Overtime segment, the first question pertained to speculation about the identity of Donald Trump's pick as a vice=presidential running mate.
- Sellers: the only person who poses any fear for Democrats is probably Marco Rubio. Marco- he looks like the future, he has a great deal of experience, he can talk to Hispanic voters in ways and communicate in ways that otherwise Trump and Burgum would have trouble doing and he's a notable opponent to Kamala Harris in debate. There's no concern over Burgum or J.D. Vance. J.D. Vance- uh, he stands for nothing.
- Maher: But,uh, wait a second. I read that because they're both from Florida, Trump and Rubio, that they can't be on the same ticket.
- McCarthy: So Rubio would move to Virginia-same thing that Cheney did. He moved out of Texas and went back to Wyoming. You can't come from the same state.
- Maher: I know. So you move-
- Shapiro: He could residency, actually, in Nevada, right? He actually spends a fair amount of his year in Nevada.
- McCarthy: He would have to resign from the Senate and-
- Shapiro: DeSantis would appoint his replacement.
- McCarthy: Yeah.
- Maher: So-
- McCarthy: He can do it. He just can't be from the same state.
Four men, three white and one black, two Democrats and two Republicans. Three of the four make their living from politics and one is fairly well-versed in politics as a de facto requirement of his vocation as a comedian.
And all of them ignorant.
Article II, paragraph 3 of the USA Constitution states "The electors.... shall vote for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves." A constitutional scholar and political science professor explains
In 1804, the United States adopted the 12th Amendment, which
addresses some of the confusion around the Electoral College and altered the
process. The Vice President was put on a separate ballot, allowing electors to
vote for one person for President and another person for Vice President. Now,
candidates for both offices simply run together as a unified ticket. However,
the residual requirement that the electors could not cast both ballots for a
person from their own state was not removed.
No, former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, a presidential and a vice-presidential nominee of the same party can come from the same state. Someone on that four-person panel should have realized it. But the ignorance of an individual who recently served as the highest-ranking Republican in the nation is astounding, at the least.
So let me get this straight: Republicans are threatening to remove their own Speaker, impeach the President, and shut down the government on September 30th - disrupting everyday people’s paychecks and general public operations.
The motivation isn't the same with each member of the House Republican caucus who is inviting chaos. Many represent districts which are extremely conservative, in which the incumbent faces greater danger of losing his or her seat from a primary challenge from an even more ridiculous Republican than the member does in a general election. And most welcome the additional campaign contributions they know will come their way if a reckless, radical, and ruinous (alliteration day!) proposal is made or path followed.
Nonetheless, there is an additional reason. They believe impeachment proceedings and shutting down the government makes government look dysfunctional and incompetent. And they know that government, especially on the national level, is associated with the Democratic Party. When government is seen as ineffectual, the default position is to conclude Democrats are responsible (or, rather, irresponsible). If Congress and the presidency are controlled by the GOP, blame can be credibly laid at the feet of Republicans. However, if power appears split in Washington, Democrats must do a yeoman's job to convince voters that it is Republicans who are disruptive and destructive.
It's almost inevitable that Democrats would be held responsible in the short term or the medium term for the perception of failure or success of government. Therefore, it's critical that the public recognize that government is both desirable and necessary. "The era of big government is over," President William Jefferson Clinton once insisted, thereby suggesting the superfluousness of government.
Chris McGreal of The Guardian recently traveled to Dayton to understand the problems Democrats face in appealing to the voters, especially those of the working-class, in the once-swing state of Ohio. Among those he spoke to were Fred Strahorn, once a member of the Ohio House of Representatives and minority leader of the state's General Assembly. Strahorn
said there would be no quick comeback for the party
in Ohio and that ultimately winning voters’ confidence was a long game. He
wants the Democrats to have the courage to embrace what he regards as one of
the party’s greatest strengths, defence of government as a means to improve
people’s lives.
He said the party had become afraid of doing it in the face
of relentless Republican attacks blaming people’s problems on “big government”,
a strategy reinforced by Democrats in Congress who serve the interests of
corporations.
“One of the failures, multi decades long, is not telling
people what government does for them and remind them on a regular basis, so
they’re not so easily turned against it. We’ve not defended government, not
really explained all the things that government does that you actually like,
want and use,” he said.
“Therefore when somebody comes along and takes a swack at
it, it’s easy for people to believe because they never hear anything but that.
If you don’t counter that it really makes it hard for that electorate to see
you as somebody who’s trying to help them because you haven’t explained how
that works. That’s your battleground.”
Republicans have a narrative, which they consistently tout and the media finds agreeable, that government only interferes with the initiative, productivity, and general wonderfulness of individuals. Individual Democrats boast, as they should, about what they individually have done to improve the lives of individuals and families, or what the President of their party has done. However, they recoil from the thought of making clear that government has in any way improved their lot in life and avoid contradicting GOP claims of the evil it doe.
They even occasionally slam Donald Trump by lauding President Ronald Reagan, he who undermined the public's faith and trust in the federal government with the famous "The nine most terrifying words in the English language are 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help,'"
Aside from- possibly- his own family, there are three people Kevin McCarthy cares about: 1) Kevin McCarthy; 2) Kevin McCarthy; and 3) Kevin McCarthy. So McCarthy is trying to save his own skin by threatening to shut down the government. But he also knows he does it against a backdrop of nearly forty years of one side tearing down government and the other side refusing to fight back..
This is an apt comment about Brian Kemp but an even better one about other Republicans.
Trump abused him, he called the cops but ultimately didn't press charges and now they're moving in together.
— J. Quinten 🎧🎙 (@TheRealJQuinten) July 18, 2023
Kemp is similar to an abused spouse or domestic partner, whom obviously is usually the woman. However, fitting the bill even better is House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, who
demurred on the question of
whether Donald Trump is best candidate Republicans can put forward to face Joe
Biden in 2024 — before backlash from Magaworld forced him to walk back his
criticism and call the former president to apologise.
In a CNBC interview on Tuesday, Mr McCarthy said Mr Trump
can beat Mr Biden but that he’s not sure another Republican couldn’t do better.
“Can he win that election? Yeah, he can,” Mr McCarthy said.
“The question is, is he the strongest to win the election? I don’t know that
answer. But can somebody, can anybody beat Biden? Yeah, anybody can beat
Biden.”
But like an abused wife or girlfriend
The House speaker changed his tune in a later interview with
Breitbart, saying his words had been twisted and he didn’t mean to undermine Mr
Trump.
As usual, the media is attempting to drive a wedge between
President Trump and House Republicans as our committees are holding Biden’s DOJ
accountable for their two-tiered levels of justice,” he said. “The only reason
Biden is using his weaponised federal government to go after President Trump is
because he is Biden’s strongest political opponent, as polling continues to
show.”
“Just look at the numbers this morning—Trump is stronger
today than he was in 2016,” he added in reference to a Morning Consult poll
which showed Mr Trump ahead of Mr Biden by a margin of 44 per cent to 41 per
cent.
It later emerged that, in addition to the Breitbart
interview, Mr McCarthy also called the former president to apologise for his
comments, CNN reports. He even sent out a campaign fundraising email on behalf
of Mr Trump that claimed the 45th president was “stronger than ever” heading
into the 2024 election.
Well, of course he did, because most Republicans not in swing districts- and most aren't- are on balance fine with Donald Trump, who
could face still more legal trouble in the months
to come over his attempts to overturn the result of the 2020 presidential
election,…
Still, Mr McCarthy’s suggestion that Mr Trump may not be the
strongest candidate is notable if only because the California representative
has long been one of Mr Trump’s most vocal allies in Republican leadership —
famously aiding his political rehabilitation by visiting him at Mar-a-Lago just
weeks after the Capitol riot.
Fret not for Kevin McCarthy, Brian Kemp, or like-minded members of their party. Aided by centrist and center-left media, the myth remains that most Republicans are only bowing to the wishes of right-wing, unreasonable constituents. This is not the case, on the federal level and not in most states controlled by the GOP. The pols and their donors are willing members of this caucus.
From destroying #ReproductiveRights to privatizing schools, much of the top-billed items on the Right’s agenda are wildly unpopular.
It’s no accident that “keep questions off state ballots” is item 2 behind “focus on pliable GOP state legislators” in the playbook for all this https://t.co/KRlzc8uKdI
Most people, even Republicans, are reasonable, if led by reasonable politicians. But throughout the country, GOP leaders are far -right extremists, members of an informal, unofficial reckless caucus. They know what they're doing, it's not pretty, and they shouldn't be let off the hook.
Yes, we are going again- only not in the way the Speaker of the House wants us to believe.
We've seen this play before because they've run this play before.
Here we go again — an outrageous abuse of power by a radical DA who lets violent criminals walk as he pursues political vengeance against President Trump.
I’m directing relevant committees to immediately investigate if federal funds are being used to subvert our democracy by…
Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.), the likely
successor to House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), told Fox News’s Sean Hannity
explicitly on Tuesday night that the Clinton investigation was part of a
“strategy to fight and win.”
He explained: “Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable,
right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee.
What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she’s
untrustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened, had we not
fought.”
The Republican-led House hasn’t been particularly good at
governing, but perhaps governing has never been the point. Why govern when
there’s a future election to influence?
Then, governing wasn't the point because there was a future election to influence. And influence they did. In June, 2017 NBC News reported
Endless investigations. The biggest scandal since Watergate.
Coverups. An inability to govern. A possible constitutional crisis. These were
all arguments that Donald Trump made against Hillary Clinton in the closing
days of the 2016 presidential election.
They brought the receipts, recalling
October 28 in Cedar Rapids, IA: “As you’ve heard, earlier today the FBI after discovering
new emails is reopening their investigation into Hillary Clinton… The
investigation is the biggest political scandal since Watergate and it’s
everybody’s hope that justice at last can be delivered.”
November 2 in Miami, FL: “If Hillary Clinton were to be elected, it would create an
unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis. Haven’t we just been
through a lot with the Clintons, right?”
November 2 in Orlando, FL:: “Hillary is likely to be under investigation for many years,
probably concluding in a criminal trial.”
November 4 in Atkinson, NH: “She'll be under investigation for years. She'll be with
trials. Our country, we have to get back to work.”
November 4 in Wilmington, OH: “Hillary has engaged in a criminal massive enterprise and
cover-ups like probably nobody ever before.”
November 5 in Reno, NV: “There's virtually no doubt that FBI Director Comey and the
great, great special agents of the FBI will be able to collect more than enough
evidence to garner indictments against Hillary Clinton and her inner circle,
despite her efforts to disparage them and to discredit them. If she were to win
this election, it would create an unprecedented constitutional crisis. In that
situation, we could very well have a sitting president under felony indictment
and ultimately a criminal trial.”
November 5 in Denver, CO: “Her current scandals and controversies will continue
throughout her presidency and we will make it honestly, look, it's gonna be
virtually impossible for her to govern. Now, the Republicans have talked very
tough and the Democrats. It's gonna be just another mess for another four
years, folks. A mess. We've got to get back to work, right? I mean, we have to
get back to work.”
November 6 in Minneapolis, MN: “First thing you should do is get rid of Clinton. Hillary
Clinton will be under investigation for a long, long time for her many crimes
against our nation, our people, our democracy, likely concluding in a criminal
trial.”
November 6 in Moon Township, PA: “The investigations into her crimes will go on for a long,
long time. The rank and file special agents at the FBI won't let her get away
with these terrible crimes, including the deletion of 33,000 emails after
receiving a congressional subpoena. Right now, she's being protected by a
rigged system.”
On October 27, 2016, the day before Trump began his barrage of statements claiming that election of Hillary Clinton would bring unprecedented chaos to American government, Trump trailed his opponent by 5.4 points in the Real Clear Politics average.Approximately 24 hours before the polls opened, the deficit had dropped to 2.5 points, critically assisted by the announcement on 10/28 by FBI director Jim Comey that he had found a new trove of suspicious Clinton emails.
Comey figuratively plunged the knife into the heart of the Democrat's campaign on October 28. After the induced hysteria had subsided, he pulled the knife out by announcing on November 7 that they were emails already examined. These actions only enhanced the argument, central to his campaign, that Trump made on November 2 that "If Hillary Clinton were to be elected, it would create an unprecedented and protracted constitutional crisis."
This was the culmination of the complaint of Majority Leader McCarthy 13-14 months earlier that Hillary Clinton not only was "untrustable." Left unstated but implied was the chaos of Benghazi and the subsequent hearings would become the norm, with the chaos of endless committee hearings, if she were to become the nation's chief executive.
And now we have the same, but with increased institutional power and influence, Kevin McCarthy trampling over the fundamental concept of separation of powers by threatening investigations into a "radical DA" who would dare enforce the law against a private citizen, Donald Trump.
McCarthy boasted in 2015 that hearings into Clinton's role in Benghazi had brought her poll numbers down. Those hearings laid the groundwork for the overwrought, largely trumped-up (pun intended) e-mail scandal, exploited by an irresponsible media. Dionne then recognized that tax money "was going out the door primarily to affect the chances of one particular candidate for president." It's more than six years later, but as Chris Cillizza explained ten months ago, Kevin McCarthy is owned lock, stock, and barrel by Donald J. Trump.
She has reason to be. There were a few issues Biden did not
handle particularly well but his segment on the two most popular entitlement
programs- Social Security and Medicare- was a tour de force. Amid cheers from Democrats and jeers and
various expressions of disapproval from Republicans, Biden stated
Let’s commit here tonight that the full faith and credit of
the United States of America will never, ever be questioned.
Some of my Republican friends want to take the economy
hostage — I get it — unless I agree to their economic plans. All of you at home
should know what those plans are.
Instead of making the wealthy pay their fair share, some
Republicans, some Republicans, want Medicare and Social Security to sunset. I’m
not saying it’s the majority.
Let me give you — anybody who doubts it, contact my office.
I’ll give you a copy — I’ll give you a copy of the proposal. That means
Congress doesn’t vote — I’m glad to see — no, I tell you, I enjoy conversion.
You know, it means if Congress doesn’t keep the programs the
way they are, they go away.
Other Republicans say — I’m not saying it’s a majority of
you, I don’t even think it’s even a significant — but it’s being proposed by
individuals. I’m not — politely not naming them, but it’s being proposed by
some of you.
Look, folks, the idea is that we’re not going to be — we’re
not going to be moved into being threatened to default on the debt if we don’t
respond.
Folks — so folks, as we all apparently agree, Social
Security and Medicare is off the books now, right? They’re not to be — all
right. We’ve got unanimity.
Social Security and Medicare are a lifeline for millions of
seniors. Americans have to pay into them from the very first paycheck they
started.
So tonight, let’s all agree — and we apparently are — let’s
stand up for seniors. Stand up and show them we will not cut Social Security.
We will not cut Medicare.
Those benefits belong to the American people. They earned
it.
And if anyone tries to cut Social Security, which apparently
no one’s going to do, and if anyone tries to cut Medicare, I’ll stop them. I’ll
veto it. And look, I’m not going to allow them to take away — be taken away.
Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever. But apparently it’s not
going to be a problem.
Not now, it's not. In
the video below, Representative Boebert can be seen claiming the President
"lied about Republicans wanting to cut Medicare and Social Security. We
made it very clear tonight that is off the table." President Biden had noted "some Republicans want Social
Security and Medicare to sunset. I'm not saying it's the majority." A moment later, he even conceded "I
don’t even think it’s even a significant — but it’s being proposed by
individuals."
Those individuals would include Wisconsin Senator Ron
"Moscow" Johnson, who in a podcast last summer
suggested that Social Security and Medicare be transformed
into programs whose budgets are appropriated by Congress on an annual basis. He
pointed out that budgets for the Defense and Veterans Affairs departments are
approved as discretionary spending.
“What we ought to be doing is we ought to turn everything
into discretionary spending so it’s all evaluated so that we can fix problems
or fix programs that are broken, that are going to be going bankrupt,” Johnson
said. “As long as things are on automatic pilot, we just continue to pile up
debt.”
More radically, Utah Senator Mike Lee, in remarks he had made at a campaign event in 2010 and revealed in a video resurfacing last year, had stated (at 2:48 of the video below)
I'm here right now to tell you one thing you probably have
not heard from a politician: It will be my objective to phase out Social
Security, to pull it up from the roots and get rid of it. People who advise me politically always tell
me it's dangerous and I tell them "In that case, it's not worth my running.'
That's why I'm doing this, to get rid of that. Medicare and Social Security are
of the same sort, they need to be pulled up.
That seems pretty clear, but more significantly- and in line
with Johnson's position-
Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) on Wednesday defended his proposal
to sunset all federal legislation after five years and slammed President Biden
as “confused” in response to Biden’s claim at the State of the Union address
that some Republicans want to sunset Social Security and Medicare.
“In my plan, I suggested the following: All federal
legislation sunsets in five years. If a law is worth keeping, Congress can pass
it again,” Scott said in a statement following Biden’s address to a joint
session of Congress.
Scott last year rankled Republicans when he rolled out a
12-point policy agenda that included the sunset proposal, which Democrats
promptly began using as ammunition in the midterms.
“This is clearly and obviously an idea aimed at dealing with
all the crazy new laws our Congress has been passing of late,” Scott added,
denying Biden’s claim Tuesday evening that Republicans want to end Social
Security and Medicare.
Biden said that “instead of making the wealthy pay their
fair share, some Republicans, some Republicans want Medicare and Social
Security to sunset,” eliciting loud boos from GOP lawmakers in the
chamber.
Some House Republicans have floated the idea of reforms to
entitlement programs as part of debt ceiling negotiations, though Speaker Kevin
McCarthy (R-Calif.) and others insist cuts aren’t on the table.
Speaking over the raucous response, the president insisted,
“Anybody who doubts it, contact my office, I’ll give you a copy — I’ll give you
a copy of the proposal.”
“It is being proposed by individuals. I’m politely not
naming them, but it’s being proposed by some of you,” Biden said.
That barb infuriated Scott, the former chairman of the
National Republican Senatorial Committee, who called the claim “a lie” and “a
dishonest move … from a very confused president.”
“I will not be intimidated by Joe Biden twisting my words,”
he declared and pushed back by arguing that Democrats effectively cut Medicare
when they gave the federal government power to negotiate lower prescription
drug prices in the Inflation Reduction Act.
This was a position Scott advocated as the chairman of the NRSC. Nonetheless, he accuses Biden of twisting his words while Scott acknowledged that he proposed "that all
federal legislation sunset(s) in five years. So he quotes his own report
proposing exactly what the President maintained (some) Republicans want to do, a magnificent self-own.
Late last month,
Kevin "don't call me Joe" McCarthy was asked on Face the Nation whether he would
"consider any reductions to Social Security and Medicare" and
responded "No. Let's take those off the table."
Nevertheless, when a few details of the secret deal
negotiated by McCarthy to win the vote to become Speaker leaked, Vox's Andrew
Prokop reported
McCarthy commits that House Republicans will create a plan
for a balanced federal budget within 10 years, including “long-term reforms” to
mandatory spending programs (entitlements like Medicare, Social Security, and
Medicaid), as well as capping discretionary spending where it was during the
first fiscal year of the Biden administration.
The long-term reforms pledged by McCarthy certainly sound
like an effort to reduce outlays for Social Security and Medicare benefits over
the long term. On Face the Nation, McCarthy, agreeing to take reductions
"off the table," was probably referring to immediate cuts to appear
in the upcoming budget. However, he was not foreclosing the likelihood of those
"long-term reforms" in earned benefits, or what Republicans like to
label "entitlements."
"Not today. Not tomorrow. Not ever," the President
vowed. The GOP knows not to advocate
reductions in benefits for today's senior citizens because old people vote. But they've been talking for decades about
"strengthening" or "protecting" those pesky
"entitlements," which to everyone involved in the issue is shorthand
for pulling the rug out from under future beneficiaries.
Whether Lauren Boebert is aware of the recent politics
surrounding the matter, and thus intentionally deceptive, or is merely a useful
idiot is undetermined. But taking a knife to the programs long has been on the Republican's wish list, a
little less attainable after Tuesday's State of the Union address.
Republican Representative Rick Allen of Georgia defended his
position on raising the age when seniors can receive Social Security by saying
people want to work longer.
Advocacy group Social Security Works posted a video of Mr
Allen walking through the tunnels of the House of Representatives where he was
asked about why he wants to raise the age of retirement.
“You know, that’s interesting that you ask that question,”
he said. “People come up to me, they actually want to work longer.”
Currently, senior citizens collect Social Security and
Medicare at the age of 65. But some have proposed the idea of raising the age
to 67.
The person asking him the question asked if that proposal
was on the table at the moment.
“Well, you know, if people want to work longer, maybe you
need an incentive to do it,” Mr Allen said. “That’s the way to solve every one
of these problems, by the way, and actually grow wealth at the same time.”
Mr Allen sits on the powerful House Energy and Commerce
Committee, which deals with health care legislation. Mr Allen’s remarks come as
Republicans took control of the majority in the House of Representatives
earlier this month.
Responding to Allen's comments, at 1:39 of the video below,
The Young Turks' Ana Kasparian remarks
When they say they want to raise the retirement age, don't
be tricked into thinking that this isn't cutting Social security. It's just
raising the retirement age because Americans are living much longer- except
that's actually not true. The life expectancy of Americans has actually been
going down in recent years and life expectancy in the United States is
comparable to that of people living in Cuba.
To paraphrase a old saying, nobody died and made me a
fact checker. However, if I had to rate the accuracy of the latter
statement of Kasparian on a scale of 0 to 10 (with D. Trump at 0.5 and G.
Santos at 0.0), I'd give it an 8.
Life expectancy in the USA had been rising until it
declined in 2020. It declined further in 2021, and appears to have remained
the same in 2022. Presumably, that is
due to SARS-CoV-2. However, we can be sure neither that it will rebound after
the pandemic vanishes nor that there will not be repeated coronaviruses
into the indefinite future. Moreover, in 2021 "life expectancy at birth
began to rebound in most comparable countries while it continued to decline in
the U.S.," suggesting that a decline in life expectancy is not inevitable
after the peak of a major health crisis has passed.
Worse even than being "comparable," life
expectancy at time of birth in 2021 was 2.9 years lower in the USA than in
Cuba. That may be unsurprising because the single-payer health care system in
Cuba is superior provides significantly greater benefits than provided in the USA, with its largely
market-based system. Undoubtedly unsurprising is the lower age at death in the USA than in other, comparable developed nations.
The fallacy that Americans are living dramatically longer
lives than ever before is central to the effort to cut Social Security and
Medicare benefits. On January 12, House
of Representatives Speaker Kevin McCarthy, fresh off selling his soul and more
to be elected to the position, vowed "one thing I will tell you, as
Republicans, we will always protect Medicare and Social Security. We will
protect them for the next generation going forward. But we are going to
scrutinize every single dollar spent."
Hold on to your wallet.
It may be a nod and a wink, but when politicians threaten to protect
Social Security and Medicare, it means the programs are on their hit list. The theory is that the programs are on the
cusp of bankruptcy (they're not) so the
only way to "protect" them is to reduce benefits, raise the
eligibility age, lower the cost-of-living adjustments, or means-testing
benefits. The "scrutinize every single dollar spent" makes it obvious. (McCarthy is not talking about the defense budget or corporate giveaways.)
So when Republicans balk at raising the debt ceiling, it's
not only to try to bring the nation's economy to its knees. It's a continuation
of a decades-long effort to uproot the social safety net and if the elderly are
among its casualties, so be it.
Of course, this is a ridiculous claim by Donald Trump. But we already knew that Donald Trump is, as Al Franken might put it, a lying liar who tells lies, so the moral of the story lies elsewhere.
Donald Trump claims that the judges in Kari Lake's lawsuit ruled against her because they were being threatened. pic.twitter.com/vr0UNhiTPi
— The Republican Accountability Project (@AccountableGOP) January 12, 2023
It's a style being copied by other Republicans, including the most powerful Republican in the country (Leonard Leo being the most influential).
House Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Thursday defended his
decision to keep California Democrats Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff off the
House Intelligence Committee – arguing that Schiff "openly lied"
about the Russian election interference and a disturbing briefing he received
from the FBI on Swalwell.
"If you got the briefing I got from the FBI, you
wouldn't have Swalwell on any committee," McCarthy said in the press
conference after one reporter questioned MCarthy's commitment to allowing
Democrats to pick their own committee membership.
"And you're going to tell me other Democrats couldn't
fill that slot? He cannot get a security clearance in the private sector,"
McCarthy said. "So would you like to give him a government clearance?"
“Members of Congress are routinely provided with defensive
briefings to raise awareness of the potential for them to be targeted by
foreign adversaries,” a senior FBI official said Thursday in response to an
inquiry about Swalwell. “As part of this briefing, they are encouraged to alert
the FBI about any suspicious activity and to cooperate with any
investigation"...
An FBI official has previously defended Swalwell, telling
outlets in December that Swalwell was “completely cooperative” and “under no
suspicion of wrongdoing,”
House GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy intends to force a vote on
Swalwell’s committee post Thursday afternoon, contending that the Democrat’s
interactions with Fang disqualify him from holding the sensitive assignment.
Swalwell wouldn’t be eligible for a security clearance in the private sector
and shouldn’t therefore be granted access to national security secrets through
the intelligence panel, McCarthy argued at a Thursday press conference.
Asked to explain his push against Swalwell, McCarthy fell
back on classified information he says he received in an FBI briefing last
year. “I cannot talk to you about what I was given in a classified briefing,”
he said, adding that the public record of Swalwell’s relationship with Fang
should be enough to disqualify him.
McCarthy was singing the same tune then as now but
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who unilaterally appoints the
Democratic members of the House Intelligence Committee, has stood behind
Swalwell, saying she has “no concerns” about his actions.
House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff also defended
Swalwell Thursday, issuing a statement of support in a “Dear Colleague” letter
aimed at rallying the Democratic caucus to his side. Schiff noted that
Republicans — including the panel’s current ranking GOP member Devin Nunes of
California and then-Speaker John Boehner — were briefed on the matter in 2015
and raised no concerns about Swalwell’s ability to continue serving on the
committee.
When briefed on the matter, Democrats weren't worried.
Neither was the Republican Speaker of the House nor Devin Nunes, who became
such a supporter of President Trump that he would eventually resign from the
House to become CEO of Trump's Truth Social platform.
It's time for Kevin McCarthy to put up or shut up. If he has
damaging information on Representative Eric Swalwell, he should not keep it
from voters in California's 14th Congressional District.
He won't, however. He's rather slander (not in a strictly
legal sense, but still) a Democrat just as his hero, Donald J. Trump, does,
making wild charges without presenting any evidence. It's a feature of the Republican Party now,
where truth is not only optional, but a virtue to be avoided at almost any
cost.
Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) praised former President
Trump and Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.) for pushing him over the finish line and
helping him secure the gavel.
He gave the two credit for convincing each of the six
remaining Republican holdouts — of which Gaetz was one — to vote “present” on
the 15th ballot, lowering the number of votes McCarthy needed to win.
Wisely, if a little unfairly, there was one individual
McCarthy chose not to thank for helping his win his battle for Speaker of the
House. CNN reported
Before the final vote, pandemonium erupted on the House
floor after Gaetz waited until the very end of the 14th ballot to vote
“present” when McCarthy needed one more “yes” vote. Stunned after believing he
had the votes, McCarthy faced his most embarrassing defeat yet. McCarthy’s
allies encircled Gaetz to try to find a way forward. McCarthy soon made a
bee-line for discussion and started engaging Gaetz, too.
After McCarthy walked away from Gaetz, looking dejected,
Armed Services Chairman Mike Rogers moved toward the conversation and lunged at
Gaetz, having to be physically restrained by Republican Rep. Richard Hudson of
North Carolina. Rogers, a Republican from Alabama who earlier in the week
warned the GOP dissidents they would lose their committee assignments, told
Gaetz he would be “finished” for continuing to wreck the speaker’s vote.
Representative Patrick McHenry, a loyal McCarthyite, moved
to adjourn the chamber until Monday and a majority voted to adjourn when
with less than a minute left to go in the vote, Gaetz moved
toward the front of the chamber, grabbing a red index card to change his vote
on adjournment. Gaetz walked toward McCarthy, and the two briefly exchanged
words. McCarthy then raised his hand and yelled out, “One more!” as he
triumphantly walked toward the front of the chamber to change his vote, too. It
was the GOP leader’s final negotiation capping an emotional roller coaster over
the course of four days as he was held hostage by a narrow faction of his
conference. Dozens of Republicans followed McCarthy and Gaetz to defeat the
adjournment measure, and McCarthy’s victory, at last, was at hand.
The six Republican holdouts all voted present on the 15th
ballot, giving McCarthy a 216-212 victory...
Gaetz changed his vote for some reason or another but it
appears not to have been any additional concessions he gained from the cowardly
and superficial McCarthy because Gaetz admitted “I ran out of things I could
even imagine to ask for.” If those
concessions had been sufficient for the Floridian to vote for McCarthy, he
would already have done so. Instead, after denying a victory for the latter on
the 14th ballot and voting for an adjournment which would have given the
anti-McCarthy forces a chance to regain momentum over the weekend, Gaetz
changed course.
We'll never know the reason definitively because unsurprisingly, no one wants to 'fess up. However, CNN correspondent Melanie Zanona (as seen at 4:59 of the
video, with subtitles, below) has stated
And so Kevin McCarthy was completely dejected. We saw him
walk up the aisle toward where Boebert and Gaetz were sitting and pleading with
them to vote for him. He was in a moment of desperation.
Not to worry, Kev. Your muscle is on its way:
And then he saw Mike Rogers coming up from him behind the
well, coming down the aisle. And this is the one- he's a chairman, uh, he's a
close McCarthy ally. he has been growing frustrated and more frustrated with
the holdouts all week. So that is important context. In fact, we are told that
he had threatened to kick some of the holdouts off of their committee
assignments if they didn't fall in line. So he was frustrated. he came down the
aisle and sources told Annie Grier that he basically said "Matt, you're
finished" to him and at that point, Hudson, another member, he came up
behind him, sort of muzzled both and tried to hold him back so he wasn't able
to speak any more.
Well played- so well played that one is tempted to wonder
how Rogers, born in Indiana but raised in Alabama and representing one of its
congressional districts, so effectively exhibited the ways of La Cosa Nostra, an
organization always far less influential there than in the urban Northeast,
Midwest, Florida, and Texas.
"Matt, you're finished" is so vague and
threatening that Representative Gaetz probably was unclear what exactly Rogers
was referring to, and didn't want to find out. And Representative Hudson holding Rogers back was a nice
touch, a fine portrayal of a good cop, bad cop routine. It was almost as if it
had been choreographed, which cannot be determined because cable news networks
are disinterested in an event once the video becomes stale.
You can catch more bees with honey than with vinegar, the
cliche runs. Not being a bee, Gaetz was
insufficiently moved by the favors granted him by Kevin McCarthy and became motivated only when a southern
colleague issued an unspecific threat of political, personal, or professional injury.
"Everyone has a plan," Mike Tyson once noted, "until they get
punched in the mouth."
Matt Gaetz got punched in the face and his plan went out the
window, which may be a message for Democrats as they ponder how to deal with
the new GOP majority in the House.
I know the entire Beltway media will now be obsessed with getting every major Republican elected on record as to whether or not they want to defund the FBI.
— Rachel Bitecofer 📈ðŸ”🇺🇲🇺🇦 (@RachelBitecofer) August 9, 2022
Colorado Rep. Lauren Boebert released a video stating that
she’s “pissed.” She described the actions as “totally un-American” and “Gestapo
crap" and added “the department of injustice needs to be cleaned out.”
Tagging the FBI in a tweet, she wrote, “the GOP majority must defund all forms
of tyranny throughout Biden’s government.”
Fringe-right Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene unsurprisingly also
got in on the action. She has tweeted an upside-down American flag—a symbol
traditionally associated with distress—and wrote “DEFUND THE FBI!”
Meanwhile, House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy announced
his plans to investigate the person he believes to be behind the search.
Rep. Paul Gosar, R-Ariz., another close Trump ally, called
for the "complete dismantling and elimination of the democrat brown shirts
known as the FBI."
"We must destroy the FBI," he wrote in a
subsequent tweet.
Some lesser-known Trump supporters went even further than
that. Florida state Rep. Anthony Sabatini called for his state to "sever
all ties with DOJ immediately."
Two Democrats- Rashida Tlaib and Cori Bush- in the United
States House of Representatives have publicly supported defunding the police.
They are clear and explict that communities must be rid of all police.
But now it seems there are three House Republicans- Boebert,
Greene, and Gosar- who want to dump the primary federal law enforcement agency,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Bitecofer understands that journalists will be loathe to put
Republicans on the spot by asking if they want to defund the nation's premier
law enforcement force. However, Democrats
have a responsibility- to lead the Beltway media where it does not want to go.
The media cannot be expected to raise issues Democrats
themselves appear to be avoiding. And so
pundits and politicians of a liberal bent must force the issue and accuse Republicans
of defunding the FBI. Make Republicans deny that they want to defund police; when they're denying, they're losing, as House Majority Leader Clyburn recognizes.
Of course, most Republicans don't want to eliminate a
police force. But neither are there more than a very few Democrats who
ever have suggested that police forces should be disbanded. Yet, there are
prominent Democrats- especially Clyburn, largely
responsible for the presidential nomination of Joe Biden- who have publicly
spanked unnamed progressive Democrats for wanting to do so.
It's not too much to expect Clyburn and the others to do to
Republicans what a few Democrats did to members of their own party. They accused Democrats
of wanting to leave the nation's citizens unprotected against dangerous
criminals, or at least seeming to do so. Now let's see them turn the argument against the GOP.
In my last post, I lamented that I had no choice but to
defend US Representative Ilhan Omar, the famous Democrat from Minnesota. It gets worse.
Now it's Bill Donohue of the Catholic League, who a year ago
was credibly accused of
doing more to push people away from and out of the Catholic
Church than any prominent atheist ever could,. We always look forward to
Donohue’s statements. Time and time again, he proves our point: Religious
denial of reality, whether it be about the existence of Christian nationalism
or child abuse, is causing immense harm to our country.”
Now, it's difficult to disagree with Donohue because
During an April 21 interview with far-right Catholic news
organization Church Militant, activist Michael Voris alleged that bishops
receive "enormous sums of money from the federal government, federal
taxpayers, to assist in illegal immigration," prompting Greene to take aim
at Catholic charities that provide funding for causes related to undocumented
immigrants." The Catholic League's Bill Donohue accused me of slandering
Catholics and Catholicism in an interview I gave to Michael Voris at Church
Militant. Nothing could be further from the truth, and he must apologize
promptly and publicly for these words," she said.
"It's the church leadership I was referring to when I
invoked the devil. The bishops know that but had their loyal lapdog pretend I
was being disrespectful about the faith. Just so we're clear, bishops, when I
said 'controlled by Satan,' I wasn't talking about the Catholic Church. I was
talking about you."
"What it is is ... Satan's controlling the church. The
church is not doing its job. It's not adhering to the teachings of Christ. It's
not adhering to what the word of God says we're supposed to do and how we're
supposed to live," she said.
"And what they're doing by saying, ‘Oh, we have to love
these people and take care of these migrants and love one another. This is
loving one another' — yes, we are supposed to love one another, but their
definition of what ‘love one another' means means destroying our laws. It means
completely perverting what our Constitution says. It means taking unreal
advantage of the American taxpayer."
Her inflammatory comments sparked Catholic League President
Bill Donahue to condemn her remarks, asserting that he would be reaching out to
House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy regarding the matter.
"Satan is controlling the Catholic Church? She needs to
apologize to Catholics immediately. She is a disgrace," he said in a
statement. "We are contacting House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy about
this matter. He's got a loose cannon on his hands."
If the bishops were reading the Bible and truly preaching
the word of God to their flock and not covering up child sex abuse and
pedophilia, loving one another would have the true meaning and not the
perversion and the twisted lie that they’re making it to be..."
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene says that Christian organizations are working to resettle undocumented immigrants and refugees in the U.S. because "Satan's controlling the church." https://t.co/cbnTrbOjuYpic.twitter.com/3N3X72ZLgc
Donahue demanded an apology, after which Greene demanded one from him.
.That's how it's done these days. Not the
apology but the demand for an apology, which brings no apology, aside from
possibly a statement of regret that the subject of the comment was offended.
And that's no apology at all.
Initially, the Georgia congresswoman had criticized Catholic
Charities for aiding immigrants and, as Donohue charged, "had plenty of
opportunities to make rational criticisms of the agency, but instead she
slandered the entire Catholic Church."
She could have acknowledged that the Church has made some
amends for past pedophilia of its clergy or suggested a means, such as an end
to priestly celibacy, to purge the behavior.
She could have made a distinction between legal and illegal immigration,
arguing that the Church has not. She could have explained what biblical book,
chapter, or verse the Catholic prelate is ignoring.
In a normal environment, one in which Republicans are occasionally held accountable, the congresswoman's incendiary remarks would be a problem for House Republicans.
Promising to contact Speaker Kevin McCarthy, Bill Donahue- at least for now- is
properly assigning responsibility to House leadership. Marjorie Greene traffics
in hatred, bigotry, and dishonesty, otherwise being an upstanding citizen.
Somebody has to put the pressure on the House GOP and, if it has to be someone
who himself has exhibited limited tolerance for differing viewpoints, we'll take it.
"When they go low, we go high," Michelle Obama
pompously declared at the 2016 Democratic National Convention. As diagnosis, it
still applies. As prescription, it is awful. This is how you do it:
"Kevin McCarthy is a liar and a traitor,"
Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren maintained on Sunday's State of the
Union on CNN. Three things:
1) Bad grammar- she meant "Kevin McCarthy is a liar and
traitor." ("Liar and a traitor" implies two individuals.);
2) The subject is not a traitor because treason is defined in the US Constitution as
"aid and comfort" to the nation's enemies to the enemy" and the USA is not officially at
war with anyone;
The first two points are irrelevant. Kevin McCarthy is a liar, and protesting that he's not
a traitor draws attention to the fact that he is a liar and to provoke
further discussion about whether or not he is a traitor.
It would not be a good look. The Republican Party knows that
and as of this moment, is mum about the accusations leveled by Warren.
This is a rare play run by Democrats, who are rarely on the
offensive and are content with their status as punching bags as long as they're
lauded for occasionally fighting back.
Syndicated columnist Jennifer Rubin, who no longer considers
herself a conservative and supports Joe Biden, lavishly praises Michigan
Democratic State Senator Mallory McMorrow and Missouri state Representative Ian
Mackey. The latter
went viral by denouncing the persecution of LGBTQ Americans. Addressing his Republican colleague Rep. Chuck Basye, who sponsored an amendment to a bill to prohibit transgender girls from participating in sports, Mackey noted that Basye’s gay brother had delayed coming out for fear of Basye’s reaction. Basye began his response with “If I were your brother, I would have been afraid to tell you, too."
When McMorrow was attacked in a fundraising email by a Republican colleague as one who would "groom and sexualize kindergartners," she responded with a statement which included
I know that hate will only win if people like me stand by and let it happen. So I want to be very clear right now: Call me whatever you want. I hope you brought in a few dollars. I hope it made you sleep good last night. I know who I am.
My, "I hope it made you sleep good last night" is going to strike fear into the hearts of Republicans. This passive-aggressive response is more typical of Democrats, as we can glean by reaction to US Representative Madison Cawthorn, a right-wing Republican from North Carolina.
Upon standing in 2020 as a 25-year-old for election to the House, former classmates of the dropout from Patrick Henry College circulated a letter noting
Cawthorn’s time at PHC was marked by gross misconduct towards our female peers, public misrepresentation of his past, disorderly conduct that was against the school’s student honor code, and self-admitted academic failings. During his brief time at the college, Cawthorn established a reputation for predatory behavior. … We urge the voters of North Carolina to seriously reevaluate Madison Cawthorn’s candidacy in light of who he really is.
The sexual perversion that goes on in Washington, I mean—being kind of a young guy in Washington, where the average age is probably 60 or 70 and I look at all of these people, a lot of them I’ve looked up to through my life … then all of a sudden you get invited to, ‘Oh, hey, we’re going to have kind of a sexual get-together at one of our homes, you should come!’ And I’m like, ‘What did you just ask me to come to?’ And then you realize they’re asking you to come to an orgy.
Or the fact that, you know, there’s some of the people that are leading on the movement to try and remove addiction in our country, and then you watch them do a key bump of cocaine in front of you.
And now, this:
This, too:
Dude has been a sexual predator, apparently drives with a revoked license, allegedly runs an office with more liquor bottles than water bottles and illegally fires a female staffer, and now
New photos show Republican Rep. Madison Cawthorn dressed in women's lingerie, chugging wine and surrounded by women - just weeks after he accused his GOP colleagues of inviting him to cocaine-fueled orgies.
The photos obtained by Politico how the 26-year-old Republican with a vacant look in his eyes, wearing women's hoop earrings and a woman's necklace along with a bra and lingerie set.
Screenshots of the photos were provided to the outlet by someone who used to be close to Cawthorn and his campaign. A second former confidante of Cawthorn verified the photos. It's unclear when they were taken, but he appears to be sitting in his wheelchair, indicating they were taken after the car accident that left him paralyzed in 2014.
If this were a Democrat, Republicans already would make sure Americans believed the Democratic Party were infested with liars, rapists, drug addicts, and perverts. The GOP wants Americans to think of Democrats as "groomers.". Christina Pushaw, press secretary to Florida governor Ron DeSantis, has responded to Democratic opposition to the state legislature's "Don't Say Gay" bill by charging "If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a
groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children.
Silence is complicity. This is how it works, Democrats, and I didn’t make the
rules..."
But this is what leading Democrats have had to say about Madison Cawthorn:
Crickets. Their mouths are shut. Notwithstanding Senator Warren, relatively few Democrats have denounced Kevin McCarthy. Even fewer have even mentioned Madison Cawthorn.
In the latter's case, that may be in part because the LGBTQIA+-friendly Party probably is loathe to criticize a man who enjoys wearing sexy woman's clothing, But this isn't a case of sexual preference, generally determined at birth and beyond personal choice. It's personal choice, and one the vast majority of voters would find odd, were Democrats even to mention it. Additionally, it's Madison Cawthorn, and his behavior has been atrocious at every turn. He is- or should be- a poster boy for hideousness. News flash: he's a bad seed, or at least as much as is imaginable.
This is a case for political behaviorists or even social psychologists. Democrats rag on President Trump or his enablers, Steve Bannon, Steve Miller, Mark Meadows, Rudy Giuliani, and the whole roster of rogues. But they are unable or unwilling even to question their colleagues in the House of Representatives or the Senate. It shouldn't be up to Elizabeth Warren to save the country from the likes of Kevin McCarthy and Michael Bloomberg. Her colleagues need to step up, go low, and save this nation's democratic institutions.
