Political Animal
Blog
Today’s edition of quick hits:
* By some accounts, the House will pass the Republican debt-ceiling measure within the hour, clearing the way for the Senate to defeat it later tonight. Of course, this assumes Boehner really does have the votes, which at this point, appears to be a safe bet.
* If the Boehner plan wouldn’t preserve the AAA credit rating of the United States, why is anyone even talking about it as a possibility? Shouldn’t that be an automatic deal-breaker?
* I’m actually rather impressed this keeps happening: “Telephone circuits into the House of Representatives were once again near capacity on Friday after President Obama called on Americans to keep up their calls to Congress.”
* Moody’s weighs in again: “The United States’ triple-A credit rating is likely to be affirmed by Moody’s with a negative outlook, the ratings agency said on Friday, signaling that a downgrade would not come immediately, but possibly in the medium term.”
* This week, before today, investors were pulling $9 billion a day out of money-market funds, fearing congressional Republicans would simply refuse to raise the debt ceiling.
* If it would help the process along, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) would gladly bring the Balanced Budget Amendment to the Senate floor for a vote. He knows full well it wouldn’t come close to getting a two-thirds majority.
* Revelations from the Murdoch media hacking scandal aren’t quite done yet. News of the World hacked the phone of a mother to a murdered 8-year-old girl, too.
* Why won’t President Obama pursue the “Constitutional Option”? Brad Plumer explores the issue in a thoughtful item.
* Are there some more fanciful ideas for gimmicks that could resolve the crisis? Sure there are.
* Congressional Republicans have a bold new idea: force the U.S. military to accept dirty fuels the Pentagon doesn’t want. The GOP really is getting worse with each passing day.
* Bruce Bartlett, a former policy adviser to Reagan and H.W. Bush, on the GOP: “I think a good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards.”
* House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) intends to pursue a new White House investigation because it would be “good theater.” Congress was so much more tolerable when grown-ups were in charge.
* This is probably the wrong emotional reaction, but I’m starting to feel kind of sorry for Peggy Noonan. The quality of her columns has become so awful, and the sophistication of her political analysis has become so pedantic, it’s almost as if Noonan has outsourced her career to an intern sent over by College Republicans. Maybe it’s time to consider retirement, Peggy?
* Bill O’Reilly, who I can only assume is concerned about his investment portfolio, lashed out at the Republican Party base yesterday in a fascinating tirade: “The only thing that can save Barack Obama at this point is craziness on the right…. It’s not only going to hurt the Republican Party, which has already been hurt, but it’s going to save President Obama who they hate…. The irony is, the people who dislike President Obama the most … are helping him the most. You’ve got to stop this hateful rhetoric.”
Anything to add? Consider this an open thread.
Facebook
Twitter
Zach W. on July 29, 2011 5:48 PM:
Can someone tell me who appointed Moody's and S&P kings of the universe? These are the same pack of dimwits who rated all those toxic mortgages AAA and crashed the economy. And they get to say what our nation's bond rating is?? The way I see it is if fraudulent loans can be AAA, so can the USA, even if it defaults.
Also, if it is unconstitutional to call into question the legitimacy of our nation's debt(per the 14th amendment), then why wont someone challenge the constitutionality of the debt ceiling law? Life would be a lot easier if we didn't have it. It was a bad law in the first place.
Danp on July 29, 2011 6:10 PM:
Zach W. I'll bite. Why isn't it illegal for Moody's or S&P to "question the legitimacy of our nation's debt"?
Fang on July 29, 2011 6:18 PM:
O'Reilly worried about crazies on the right? After he helped encourage it?
It's important to remember the Right does not consist of a bunch of Lex Luthors - they only get away with what they do because people let them. They're out of touch with reality, unable in many cases to do anything but maximize dollar flow and hand cash to people to advocate for them at best, and at worst blather and get paid by people who find them useful idiots. These people screwed up time and time again, and now some of them twig onto the fact their reality-free approach has a flaw.
sue on July 29, 2011 6:40 PM:
Steve,
Peggy Noonan is running to be the new David Broder.
Schtick on July 29, 2011 6:54 PM:
Best part of the phone hacking, well, actually the worxt part, is Brooks gave the mother the phone.
crapcha....newmad this....it sure is!!!
Schtick on July 29, 2011 6:56 PM:
bah, worst. sorry.
Curmudgeon on July 29, 2011 7:11 PM:
"Bruce Bartlett, a former policy adviser to Reagan and H.W. Bush, on the GOP: I think a good chunk of the Republican caucus is either stupid, crazy, ignorant or craven cowards.
He left out the most likely option: "All of the above!!"
Schtick on July 29, 2011 7:12 PM:
One other thing I was thinking about.
I think it would be "good theater" for the House Oversight Committee to investigate the Congresscritters that signed a pledge regarding how they would vote once sworn into office. I think it's treason. The oath of office should supercede any oath and if they think it doesn't, they need to resign or be impeached.
We didn't vote for them because they signed a pledge and I imagine if it were known ahead of time, many voters wouldn't have voted for them in the first place.
Lance on July 29, 2011 7:27 PM:
This is probably the wrong emotional reaction, but Im starting to feel kind of sorry for Peggy Noonan. The quality of her columns has become so awful, and the sophistication of her political analysis has become so pedantic, its almost as if Noonan has outsourced her career to an intern sent over by College Republicans. Maybe its time to consider retirement, Peggy?
They had Peggy on today on Morning Joe (I'm on vacation and got to watch) and someone really has to tell Mika B. that rolling her eyes while Joe and Peggy are slandering the President isn't really an effective defense.
But Peggy's whine is predictable. One conservative pundit says the President has to get involved, he does, and the next conservative pundit complains that he has.
It's simply scripted stupidity on their part, and the dittoheads who buy it demonstrate that.
Stephen Stralka on July 29, 2011 7:52 PM:
That doesn't complete surprise me coming from O'Reilly, because I saw an article in Parade a while back where that same Bill O'Reilly was actually praising that same Barack Obama. Now that did surprise me. Of course, he wasn't praising Obama for his political views, but for his hard work and his remarkable accomplishments, but still.
Plus, fortunately, I think he's probably right. The Tea Party is probably doing as much as anyone right now to ensure Obama's reelection. If he wins next year, we're going to need a lot of mops to clean up all of the exploded heads.
buckyblue on July 29, 2011 7:52 PM:
Watched all of 2 minutes of Morning Joe this morning and saw Noonan explain how President Obama was a loser. Then MeMeMeka explain how that wasn't true. But she did it so awfully that she didn't actually do it. I shouldn't watch that shit in the morning, WAY too early for me to be shouting Fuck You in an empty room.
JW on July 29, 2011 8:25 PM:
"Become" so awful?
Noonan jumped that dolphin the day she first learned to scrawl the alphabet.
Memekiller on July 29, 2011 8:27 PM:
"Of course, these are manufactured solutions to a manufactured crisis. The simplest option is the best. Congress needs only to lift the ceilingor, better yet, to abolish itto keep the country solvent and to give it space to move on to tackling the country's real problems."
Occam's Razor - I like it!
Of course,I think the Tea Party find Occam's Razor too simplistic.
Doug on July 29, 2011 8:38 PM:
re: 14th Amendment, use of
I read the Plumer article and some of the posts following it. In one, the poster was arguing that President Obama should just have Treasury issue debt to cover bills. His reasoning was that, since the Budget was passed AFTER the last debt ceiling increase, it takes legal precedence (or whatever the exact legal term is) over the debt ceiling limit.
In other words, President Obama WOULD NOT base his actions directly on the 14th Amendment, rather he would act based on the presumption that the House, in passing a Budget, expected the financial requirements of that Budget to be met and that is what the President would be doing. If the President used the 14th Amendment at all, it would only be to buttress the legality of his actions; ie, he was/is doing only what he must in order that the validity of the US debt not be disputed. The President might, if he wished, point out that the 14th Amendment was adopted in order to prevent exactly what is now occurring: members of Congress refusing to honor the debts and financial obligations of the US.
The House Republicans would still vote Articles of Impeachment, but it would be seen for the completely partisan it would be as, I have no doubt, NO Democrat would vote for the Articles.
Of course, nowadays, you really can't be considered a Dmocratic President unless the Republicans try to impeach you...
Rich on July 29, 2011 10:00 PM:
Noonan never got over Reagan being the distracted, unfocused guy his critics thought he was.
tomb on July 29, 2011 10:35 PM:
I would think that Obama will invoke the 14th amendment if there is a strong public demand to. He will wait to see what happens and if enough people cry uncle.
pea on July 29, 2011 10:53 PM:
Well, just a reminder that we're not alone in our political/financial chicanery:
http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/2011/07/29/unelected-oligarchies/#comment-4441
The News International scandal is just the tip of the iceberg of unelected oligarchies and corporate power in Britain’s democracy
pea on July 29, 2011 11:06 PM:
Another good one with info to pass on:
http://www.truth-out.org/how-shadowy-right-wing-front-groups-engineered-our-national-embrace-debt-reduction-over-job-creation
How Shadowy Right-Wing Front Groups Engineered Our National Embrace of Debt Reduction Over Job Creation
Anonymous on July 30, 2011 3:20 AM:
surprise web:
== ‘ρhttp://www.happyshopping100.com ==‘ρ‘ρ
Air jordan(1-24)shoes $30
exquisite watches $75
Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16
Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $15
New era cap $10
handbag $ 33
AF tank woman $ 17
FREE SHIPPING,accept pyapal
Believe you will love it.
we will give you a big discount
Opportunity knocks but once
‘ϊ http://www.happyshopping100.com
©Ψ©Π©Ψ©Π£―£ώ£ά£ί£―£ώ£ά
©Π©Ψ©Π©Ψ¨‘‘‘‘¨¨¨¨£ά
©Ψ©Π©Ψ£―£ά‘‘£―‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘©
©Π©Ψ¨M‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘/‘‘‘‘‘‘/‘‘‘‘£©
£‘ £‘
©Π©Ψ¨‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘¨¨¨
©Ψ¨¨¨¨‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ £ά£ί£ί£―
©Π¨¨¨¨¨¨‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘£―
©Ψ¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨}¨{
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨}¨{
¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨£ά
¨¨¨¨¨¨‘‘¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨¨‘‘ £ά
©Ψ¨¨¨¨¨‘‘¨¨¨¨¨¨¨‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ ©
©Π©¦‘‘‘‘‘‘©¦¨¨¨¨¨¨‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘¨
©Ψ©¦‘‘‘‘‘‘©¦ ‘‘¨
©Π¨M‘‘‘‘‘‘¨M‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘£―¨¨¨£ά‘‘‘‘‘‘ ¨M
*¨M£ί£ί_£―© ‘‘‘‘‘‘¨M‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘‘ £ά‘‘£―£ά
bob h on July 30, 2011 6:49 AM:
You're telling me that 41 Republican Senators voted against tabling a House bill that contained (a probably unconstitutional) demand that the Senate do something? Don't the Republicans have any shame? They are even willing to swallow poison pills?
Kevin J on July 30, 2011 9:04 AM:
Steve, is anyone trying to determine if the balanced budget amendment is likely to be approved by 3/4rds of the state legislatures? It seems to me that it would be nutty for any state to do so.
Now I realize that probably guarantees that at least half would pass it, but the rest have to know that the reason they can run budgets that are more balanced is because the federal government doesn't have to and can pump money into the states during crises - as they did recently - even here in Texas.
So if anyone is interested in picking this up: 1 - is it rational for states to ratify this thing, 2 - how many states are definite no vote, and 3 - if the noes are significant enough, why not pass the thing and call the Tea Party's bluff?