COMMENTARY After the apocalyse

Posted: October 2, 2013 at 5 a.m.

This stunt that House Republicans have pulled—shutting down government because they don’t like the health-care reform law that will not be affected by the shutdown—puts me in mind of one of their recent former staff aides.

His name is Mike Lofgren. For 28 years he worked as a Republican staffer on Capitol Hill, the last 16 as a budget analyst for the House and Senate.

By late 2011 he had endured all he could endure. So he quit and, in September of that year, published a buzzed-about article for a website,

In that article, Lofgren deplored that his party of Eisenhower and pragmatic conservatism had become an “apocalyptic cult” wanting either to tear down the government to take it over, or take over the government to tear it down.

By “apocalyptic” he intended a kind of religious metaphor.

Apocalyptic religion is a fundamentalist one holding that we’re all headed for a dire fate if we don’t believe and behave as the fundamentalist religion dictates.

These new Republicans who came to Congress, principally the U.S. House, with the Tea Party revolt in 2010 are like that in their politics, Lofgren wrote.

Their political theology, he said, worships private business and/or religion, owing to a convenient and cynical political merger of board room and pulpit, and sees government as the vile enemy of both.

A government dictate that everyone must buy health insurance—why, that’s practically the unpardonable sin, they believe. It burdens the private sector and presumes that a moral imperative can be mandated, and a virtuous act performed, by government.

This new shutdown of the government for no reason other than House Republican zeal reveals a prescience in Lofgren’s article, which he parlayed into a recent book, The Party is Over.

After I wrote a laudatory column in September 2011 about the article, while calling it “perhaps a tad overwrought in a sentence or two,” Lofgren sent me a note saying he’d actually restrained himself because things really were worse than I could imagine.

There was another equally profound theme of his article. It was that this new and destructively apocalyptic House Republican politics gets enabled by Democrats, the media and the people.

The Democrats are complicit, Lofgren wrote, because they are politically cowardly and inept and beholden themselves to corporate underwriters.

The news media is complicit, Logren wrote, because of a practice that The Guardian has called American journalism’s addiction to “both side-ism,” meaning a faux attention to supposed fairness by trying to balance reporting.

That, Lofgren wrote, leads people to blame both parties equally in times such as these rather than to distinguish and confront the real fact—which, in this instance, is that Republicans are singularly to blame for acting illogically with cynical obstruction.

The people are complicit, he wrote, because elections are dominated by “low-information voters” who often express their disdain for government by voting for the party most disdainful of government. That means Republicans, even as Republicans were the ones primarily responsible for making government deserving of disdain.

Every time people blame only “Congress” for “this mess,” they are, by their broad generic brush, falling into the Republicans’ trap.

The problem at hand isn’t Congress, but the House Republican subset. The “mess” at hand isn’t vague and pervasive, but narrow and specific to that House Republican subset.

It’s one thing to want to repeal the Affordable Care Act. A bill could be filed to accomplish that and it could be argued vigorously. Then a vote could be taken.

But to refuse to fund the government because you don’t like that act, and to deploy a bully’s tactic that inflicts broad collateral harm without touching that thing you don’t like—because, as it happens, the Affordable Care Act is not affected by this cessation of newly discretionary funding—well, all of that is the handiwork of extremist defenders against the apocalypse.

The wild card in the current affair is that Democrats suddenly have begun to appear less cowardly.

President Barack Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have declared simply and plainly that keeping government open is not a matter of negotiation, and that neither is the debt ceiling by which the government pays its bills.

Even the usually obliging U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor said on the Capitol View program Sunday on KARK-TV that Republicans can’t have their way this time because … they lost.

Indeed, they lost the presidency. Indeed, they lost the Senate.

They also lost the combined popular vote for the House, though they held their majority thanks to redistricting that gave them consolidated choirs to which to preach their apocalyptic sermons.

John Brummett’s column appears regularly in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Email him at Read his blog at, or his @johnbrummett Twitter feed.

The Democrats should have not shut the government down. They chose this. Harry Reid hasn't passed a budget since Obama has been in office. The Dems ideology is ruining our Country. There is still $200 billion of revenue flowing into the government every month of the year.

Believe me, Arkansas will remember Mark Pryor's votes come November 2014. He'll be history.

Posted by: footballfan

October 2, 2013 at 7:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

They are also printing $40 billion a month in hundred dollar bills out of thin air.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 2, 2013 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

That may be your best article yet John, an excellent summary. I'm going to pass it around. A country can not well function with this percentage of mindless, fundamentalist ideologues devoted to unreason.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 8:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )



Posted by: rummy

October 2, 2013 at 9:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Even the usually obliging U.S. Sen. Mark Pryor said on the Capitol View program Sunday on KARK-TV that Republicans can’t have their way this time because … they lost.

Indeed, they lost the presidency. Indeed, they lost the Senate.".

Wrong and twisted. The Republicans did not lose the presidency or the Senate because the Democrats already controlled both.. The actual fact is that the Democrats lost the House of Representatives. I suspect that in 2014 they will lose the Senate as well.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 2, 2013 at 9:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Great summary John!
thank God forSenator Pryor, as the cowards who are following these idiots in the congress are actually lying to the Arkansas citizens. they are in a hard spot tho as they have to follow the republican leaders or tell the truth to you. it's about money but I was a bit worried that some of our young congressmen (cotton) actually believe these lies!!!!
99% of men are followers and there are few leaders. as are the voters..
but get real folks.
do not believe those lies.
come on now...
do you really believe
1. Health care is bad for you?
2. Guns are good for you?
if you say something over and over, many will believe anything...
how do you think Hitler come to power?
can you even believe those nice German folks
believed his lies? our house of rep. has a group acting like that Nazi party and the rest are following!! wake up think for yourself.

Posted by: ladyLiberty

October 2, 2013 at 9:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Health care is for you if you can get quality health care. It is bad for you if it is "Obamacare".

Guns are good for you if you ever need one for any of hundreds of useful, rational, responsible, and legal purposes.

Liberty, developing a sense of personal responsibility, and self determination is healthy, rewarding, and good for you. Letting the government control you is not.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 2, 2013 at 10:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "a sense of personal responsibility,">>

No, a mere "sense" of personal responsibility isn't enough, people actually need to *take* personal responsibility and not just give lip service to it with slogans as you do here. And that's exactly what the ACA does. As with all of our peer nations, it requires people to take the personal responsibility of participating in paying toward the risk of their healthcare cost. Again:

"Everyone in Japan is required to sign up with a health insurance plan. This is a "personal mandate,".... Every nation that relies on health insurance has that requirement (except the USA), and in Japan the mandate is not controversial at all. "It's considered an element of personal responsibility, that you insure yourself against health care costs," Dr. Ikegami told me. "And who can be against personal responsibility?"
--The Healing of America, pg. 87

Who's against it? Teabaggers and these conservative posers. That's who.


Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"WASHINGTON - House Republicans reassured the nation today that during the government shutdown they would continue to work hard to cut benefits for the poor and hungry." --Andy Borowitz

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 2, 2013 at 11:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal )


"the GOP managed to find the one option less popular than Obamacare, and run with it."
-Sen Jeff Flake (R).


Posted by: cdawg

October 2, 2013 at 12:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

How the left likes to throw on the guilt trip, when it has been the liberal agenda that made all of these able bodied people on the government payroll.

Posted by: mycent

October 2, 2013 at 1:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This political theology of which Lofgren speaks is basically Borderism.
Same kind of combativeness and all or nothing "thinking" that brought on the Civil War.
Same ignorance and gullibility that allows the elite, the 1%, the bankers/plantation owners/textile mill owners then, Koch brothers, think tank pundits, and Rupert Murdoch now, to manipulate them for their own purposes.
To speak and vote against their own interests.

Posted by: Coralie

October 2, 2013 at 1:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Coralie - I don't think so. It is the left's ignorance and gullibility that thinks they can just keep on and on and on spending the taxpayers money, and not eventually hitting bottom. That is what we are trying to stop, however hopeless it may be.

Posted by: mycent

October 2, 2013 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The main reason for the expansion of the national debt throughout history has been WARS and military preparations for war.
"United States expenditures for nuclear weapons and weapons-related programs beteen 1940 and 1996 consumed nearly $5.5 trillion in adjusted 1996 dollars."
Now the U.S. is spending even more on nuclear weapons than during the Cold War--$55 billion/year.
It adds up.

Posted by: Coralie

October 2, 2013 at 2:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "How the left likes to throw on the guilt trip"
Said the conservative "Christian".

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 2, 2013 at 5 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Obama is a dead horse that Reid is trying to lead to water that isn't there. How quaint!.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 2, 2013 at 8:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Republicans and their playmates the Tea Baggers are like spoiled children that won't stay in their room for Time Out.


Posted by: rummy

October 3, 2013 at 8:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"I read that those Congressmen who were pushing for a shutdown got together and got drunk Tuesday night. I'm telling you, they better watch out because they could see a drop in their ten percent approval rating." --Letterman

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 3, 2013 at 9:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

With all that said, the people elected to the house by their voters have as much right to do this as the President and his followers have to complain about it. The tea party people won by votes the same as the other politicians did.

The political damage has been done, so the Tea Party has no motivation to end this. The democrats will have to come around and negotiate to end the shut down. I think it was pretty clever.

Again another "edit copy paste" from Fay Free, lack of original thought other than regurgitating the thoughts of others shocker!

Posted by: new423a

October 3, 2013 at 12:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Satan has a higher rating than Congress, Satan 12%, Congress 10%. Actually I think 10% is a little high for Congress.


Posted by: rummy

October 3, 2013 at 1:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Because somebody wins an election does not give him the "right" to destroy the democratic process, the economy, or the lives of ordinary citizens.
If these nutcases also decide to default on the debt, thereby perhaps plunging the whole world into an economic depression, well, they don't have the "right" to do that either.

Posted by: Coralie

October 3, 2013 at 2:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

When you can't respond to my points with substance you could always try complaining that I shared two sentences from Letterman.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 3, 2013 at 2:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Those nutcases in the House have constitutional authority to appropriate money while neither the Senate nor the Executive branch does. As a result without the House no money is appropriated. Thank God for that.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 3, 2013 at 6:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Wait till your ox is gored, jeffieboy.
As it well may be.

Posted by: Coralie

October 3, 2013 at 6:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

It's all on Boehner. I give this thing a few days (of the 17 shutdowns since 1976, the average lasted 1-3 days). If it goes much longer than that it only compounds loss for the Teabaggers. It may even be the case that the establishment republicans, who are not for this, are engaging in a little set up to help teach this bunch of clueless kiddies a lesson.

"Speaker Boehner could end the government shutdown in ten minutes by letting the House vote on it.
It's his 100% partisan refusal to allow the vote that's prolonging this made-for-TV phony "crisis." Nothing else." --Gene Lyons

As to negotiating and what these idiots are going to get, I refer to Gene Wilder who addressed this long ago:

"Everyone now has the ability to obtain health insurance, coverage effective Jan. 1, 2014, by signing up, comparing prices and levels of coverage, and obtaining an affordable policy, including the benefit of a government subsidy for lower income persons.

October 1 was a day that will be long remembered, like August 14, 1935, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the Social Security Act, propelled by the first-ever woman member of a presidential cabinet, Labor Secretary Frances Perkins, and like July 30, 1965, when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed into law the act creating Medicare and Medicaid.

As of this Oct. 1, every American now has access to health care, a truly revolutionary development and something that no one thought possible, given the ferocity of the push-back by the nation’s wealthiest, Wall Street-based radical free market types, including the health provider industry. Similar ferocious opposition erupted when the Social Security and Medicare laws were signed, and even an old fashioned military coup was organized, but quashed, during FDR’s first year when he took the first steps to redress the impact of the Great Depression."

So it seems the wing-nut bunch does this every time the people try to accomplish something really big and really good for a great number of people.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 3, 2013 at 7:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

I'm not a fan of Mike Huckabee. Never was. He was slippery as a politician and I didn't appreciate his injection of his religious background into Arkansas politics, but I just love his last post:

"Some people who’ve spent the past 48 hours trying to log onto Obamacare exchange websites finally got in only to discover they’ll need health insurance to cover their cases of sticker shock…If you expect the Affordable Care Act to make your insurance more affordable, then you don’t understand how Congress names laws. The Santa Cruz, California, Sentinel talked to some locals were stunned to see their new insurance rates. One local man was paying $630 a month for a $6,000-deductible policy for himself, his wife and their son discovered that on the state exchange, a no-frills “bronze” plan will cost him $1150 a month, with $12,000 in out-of-pocket expenses. He makes just enough not to qualify for subsidies, so half his income will go to health insurance. The paper found other angry Californians whose rates are rising by up to 70 percent. That dad predicts “huge outrage” from the middle class. That is, if there’s enough of a middle class left to raise a huge outrage.".

Did he really say that? I bet freebie can find a liberal "fact-check" web site that either refutes it or explains it simply isn't true. Hehehehehe!!!!!

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 4, 2013 at 10:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Republicans are fooling themselves once again if they think all of the entirely false and baseless anecdotes they are passing around are going to fool anyone in the long run.

People just really need to get healthcare to protect their lives and their health. This republican attempt to play football with the lives of these desperate Americans, is really quite disgusting.

Simple graphic for a simple person. Cost without health insurance versus planned doctor visit:

"I heard a peal of delight and turned around. Hilary Matfess, a young policy analyst, was jumping up and down, yelling out details.
“The mandate is constitutional! It was upheld! Roberts went for the swing vote! Yes! Oh my God! The individual mandate survives as a tax!”
Did you work on passing the bill? I asked.
“No!” said Matfess. “I just have lupus!”

Nikki White had lupis too:

“If Nikki WHite had been a resident of any other rich country, she would be alive today.
Around the time she graduated from college, Monique A. "Nikki" White contracted systemic lupus erythematosis; that's a serious disease, but on that modern medicine knows how to manage. If this bright, feisty, dazzling young woman had lived in, say Japan--the world's second-richest nation--or Germany (third richest), or Britain, France, Italy, Spain, Canada, Sweden, etc., the health care systems there would have given her the standard treatment for lupus, and she could have lived a normal life span. But Nikki White was a citizen of the world's richest country, the United States of America. Once she was sick, she couldn't get health insurance. Like tens of millions of her fellow Americans, she had too much money to qualify for health care under welfare, but too little money to pay for the drugs and doctors she needed to stay alive. She spent the last months of her life frantically writing letters and filling out forms, pleading for help. When she died, Nikki White was thirty-two years old.
"Nikki didn't die from lupus," Dr. Amylyn Crawford told me. "Nikki died from complications of the failing American health care system. It was a lack of access to health care that killed Nikki White."
--The Healing of America: The global quest for better, cheaper, and fairer health care, pg. 1

We have 20,000 Nikki White's per year. That's six 9/11's, every year. If another country was doing this to our healthcare, and killing this many Americans, we'd nuke them.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 4, 2013 at 11:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Well, freebie. It is you that are being fooled by progressive liberal fairy tales. That is why so many characterize liberals as Koolaide drinkers. Obama, Reid, Pelosi and others are your "Jim Jones".

Most also understand that you can't help it any more than a born-again bible thumping Christian can be taught the truth about the origins of the King James Bible.

You are all afflicted with something unusual that rational people have difficulty understanding. It boggles people with rational minds that people that seem as though they should have some level of intelligence can be so misguided.

Well, history is rife with those. There was Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Engle, Lenin, Chavez, Castro, Che Guevera, Chomsky, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and the list goes on.

Liberal Socialists are not the best of company to keep.

Posted by: jeffieboy

October 4, 2013 at 11:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"Trotsky, Lenin, Stalin, Engle, Lenin, Chavez, Castro, Che Guevera, Chomsky, Pelosi, Reid, Obama, and the list goes on."
Talk about comparing apples and oranges, here you throw in bananas, persimmons, and strawberries.
Some of those listed were revolutionaries, Stalin was a dictator, Chomsky is a political thinker who never entered politics., while Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are participants in the American system of democratic representation.
The only thing they have in common ideologically is that they are left of the Republican Party.

Posted by: Coralie

October 4, 2013 at 1:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

RE "here you throw in bananas, persimmons, and strawberries."
Most of what jeffieboy throws in is sour grapes.

I just hope that jeffieboy doesn't have another stroke because Obamacare works. If he does, I hope he can pay for his treatment with cash. It would be a shame if he had to avail himself of the inherent socialism of any insurance plan-- private, Medicare or Medicaid-- because he can't cope with the realities of living in a top-notch society.

Posted by: AlphaCat

October 4, 2013 at 2:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

J: "your "Jim Jones...">>

Another irrelevant and vapid post from our know nothing Tea Party representative who cannot respond with substance and accepts no correction when he doesn't get his facts straight. Which is most of the time. As is usual with cult members, it's not about facts or reality, it's about believing ideology no matter what.

So it's a little ironic that, as is typical with this callus bunch, while they are laughing and gloating about the suffering of the 48 million Americans long shut out of our healthcare system, and gleefully sneering at each predictable glitch that happens as 7 million people in one day try to access the new system, they often like to ape Bill O'Reilly's kool-aid buzzword and make light of another American tragedy where 900 Americans lost their lives, including 300 children who were murdered in a mass suicide in 1978.

While disgusting, how fittingly appropriate that this anti-American group would make light of a cult that caused the deaths of so many Americans. It's quite close to the results of their very own current efforts.

"29% [of Americans] Say Tea Party Members Are Terrorists"

That's one out of three. Rasmussen is a republican, right-wing, pollster.

"I'll be as callus and uncaring as you can imagine. I have no interest in paying for your health care. I hate to see you get cancer, but that's your problem, not mine." --Steve Lonegan, republican candidate, New Jersey

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 4, 2013 at 2:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


You continue to compare the GOP to the KKK and other terrorists. If you had ever in your life went up against terrorist your would understand how much of an idiot and horses' ass you are being, but you probably still wouldn't care. You obviously forgot that the House represents the people of the nation proportionately as well.

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 4, 2013 at 7:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

* you would

Posted by: Tankersley101

October 4, 2013 at 7:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Tnk: "continue to compare the GOP to the KKK">>

A simple page search shows the only time "KKK" appears in this thread, is in your comment. But if you want to talk about that, it's a rather mundane claim that the KKK are an entirely conservative, racist, Christian, bunch. Always have been. It is what it is.

Tnk: "and other terrorists.">>

That's wasn't me. That was 29% of the American people, as polled by Rasmussen, a well respected, far right conservative professional pollster (he was very wrong the last election cycle as I remember, thought Mitt was going to win).

Tnk: "the House represents the people of the nation proportionately as well.">>

This is naive. A couple million more people voted to put the demos in the house, see:

But I know, gerrymandering trumps popular vote.
If the house were to vote, the government "hostage" crisis (Womack's words) would end (hostage takers are usually terrorists right?). Boehner doesn't do this because three dozen Tea Party folks have him by his tiny mouse sized balls.

As to why this taking the government by hostage is entirely unprecedented and inappropriate governance, I refer you to this excellent article by the conservative Andrew Sullivan: "The Nullification Party."

"I regard this development as one of the more insidious and anti-constitutional acts of racist vandalism against the American republic in my adult lifetime. Those who keep talking as if there are two sides to this, when there are not, are as much a part of the vandalism as Ted Cruz. Obama has played punctiliously by the constitutional rules – two elections, one court case – while the GOP has decided that the rules are for dummies and suckers, and throws over the board game as soon as it looks as if it is going to lose by the rules as they have always applied.
The president must therefore hold absolutely firm. This time, there can be no compromise because the GOP isn’t offering any. They’re offering the kind of constitutional surrender that would effectively end any routine operation of the American government. If we cave to their madness, we may unravel our system of government, something one might have thought conservatives would have opposed. Except these people are not conservatives. They’re vandals.
This time, the elephant must go down. And if possible, it must be so wounded it does not get up for a long time to come."

I still like this factory owners explanation of how negotiations must go down:

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 4, 2013 at 11:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

The apocalypse won't be the continued government shutdown. It will be the default. I read a transcript of a recent interview with billionaire insurance mogul Warren Buffet. In it, he stated that a national default of a day or two could be sustained, but a default that lasts over a year will be catastrophic. The entire world economy hinges on confidence in the dollar.

With a sustained default, the value of the dollar will plummet. The price of gas, food and other essentials will skyrocket. Its impact could very well plunge us into an economic depression as bad or worse than that of the 1930s.

This has all been worked out in advance by national security agencies running computer models: Homeland Security, the NSA, FEMA, Infragard, various and sundry military intelligence departments. They've already decided who should be in the know about the future. Why do you think local police departments around the country have been militarized with SWAT teams, drone surveillance technology and military hardware? If you think it's because of the drug war, think again.

I hate to say it, but the survivalists who've stocked up on groceries, medical supplies and weapons may survive this. I've already decided that I don't want to live in a post-apocalyptic world dominated by so-called "religious" fascists and corporate totalitarianism.

Posted by: BradBailey

October 5, 2013 at 2:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

BradB: "Buffet... a default that lasts over a year will be catastrophic.">>

It's important for Buffet to say this, and as is usual with him, it's entirely true, but it's also exceedingly unlikely that the establishment republicans or their corporate masters would want or allow anything remotely like this (which is entirely unnecessary, like this shutdown).
Survivalists are idiots with the minds of small children. They haven't the slightest grasp of how the world works.

"What was the Republican Party?" -- Trivia question in the year 2033

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 5, 2013 at 10:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

"What was the Republican Party?" -- Trivia question in the year 2033

Read the polls. That are not swinging to the Democrats either. They are moving toward independent.

By the way in the year 2033 any party that represents the conservatives will be far more intolerant of liberal policies and ready for battle.

Posted by: P5harri

October 5, 2013 at 12:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

This article finds the origin of these current Republican tactics in University of California student elections some decades ago.
It's political vandalism.
I can't provide the full link because of a banned word:

Posted by: Coralie

October 5, 2013 at 1:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "polls... not swinging to the Democrats either.">>

Wrong. As I've cited many times here recently, they are up, independents are down. Chart going back to 2009:

And if we look at only nine months ago, before conservatives spent months endlessly lying and kicking up dust on the airwaves about entirely bogus scandals that went no where, we had:

"President Obama’s Approval Highest In 3 Years While GOP’s Stands At Record Low"
"President Obama heads into more negotiations with Congress over budget sequestration with an approval rating of 55%, his highest in three years. At the same time, Republicans only have an approval rating of 35%, according to a Bloomberg poll conducted on Feb. 15-18 of this year."

This latest stunt is going to take a huge chunk out of conservative support. Or as Womack aptly put it, "political suicide" that may cost them the house.

P5: "in the year 2033 any party that represents the conservatives will be far more intolerant of liberal policies...">>

And they'll able to hold their conventions in a phone booth, kinda like the libertarians do right now. The party of pale, frail, stale and male is fading. As Lindsey Graham put it:
“We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in business for the long term.”

I made a nice little bit of money betting that the libertarian candidate wouldn't get 1% of the vote in the Fall election. I won that one, as I did all 15 other calls, but that one was a squeaker. He came in just under 1%. Yeah, real viable and scary that kind of support!

Keep talking wingnuts.

"...the number of Americans willing to directly identify with the Republican Party... has been declining fairly steadily for the last several years. The latest poll from Pew Research Center... has the GOP down to only 19 percent identification:"

Tea Party is at 8 percent.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 5, 2013 at 1:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Cor: "It's political vandalism.">>

If the rat-shagging language of that one is too strong, this one is good too:

"In the year of our Lord 2010, the voters of the United States elected the worst Congress in the history of the Republic... 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. ...
We have elected an ungovernable collection of snake-handlers, Bible-bangers, ignorami, bagmen and outright frauds, a collection so ungovernable that it insists the nation be ungovernable, too. We have elected people to govern us who do not believe in government."

It's almost impossible to exaggerate just how GD stupid these people are. Consider this breathtaking example:

"Wind is God’s way of balancing heat. Wind is the way you shift heat from areas where it’s hotter to areas where it’s cooler. That’s what wind is. Wouldn’t it be ironic if in the interest of global warming we mandated massive switches to energy, which is a finite resource, which slows the winds down, which causes the temperature to go up? Now, I’m not saying that’s going to happen, Mr. Chairman, but that is definitely something on the massive scale. I mean, it does make some sense. You stop something, you can’t transfer that heat, and the heat goes up. It’s just something to think about."

Let me explain just how deep the dumb goes here. We have the republican *chairman* of the house-senate energy committee arguing that we shouldn't build windmills because it may slow the earth's winds.

This idiocy has reached the highest levels, and the world is taking notice:

"The paralysis of the American government, where a rump in Congress is holding the whole place to ransom, doesn't really jibe with the notion of the United States as a global leader," said Michael McKinley, an expert on global relations at the Australian National University."
"Sense Of Unease Growing Around The World As U.S. Government Looks Befuddled"

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 5, 2013 at 1:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Actually reading the poll helps.

In politics TODAY, do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or independent?

Repub trending down
Democrats trending down
Independent trending up.

Posted by: P5harri

October 5, 2013 at 8:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"President Obama’s Approval Highest In 3 Years While GOP’s Stands At Record Low"
"President Obama heads into more negotiations with Congress over budget sequestration with an approval rating of 55%, his highest in three years. At the same time, Republicans only have an approval rating of 35%, according to a Bloomberg poll conducted on Feb. 15-18 of this year."

From the 15th of Feb. Nit even close to reality today.

Posted by: P5harri

October 5, 2013 at 10:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "Democrats trending down">>

Oh noes, they're trending down "today?" I'm shocked. That's just terrible. I think I shall faint again.
I've given you a source that looks at about a year. Demos up, Repubs down, Teabaggers, through the floor (and about 1/3 of Americans consider them terrorists).
Your entire criticism seems to boil down to.... Obama's average presidential poll is 49%, and right now he's at... 48%.
That's margin of error. That's not a weak tea criticism, that's water.

Polls aren't going to save you, or hurt Obama. He's still going to be president for three and a half years no matter what you throw. And then you get to look forward to Hillary and you can start making up stuff to throw at her.

"Today on the 700 Club, Pat Robertson told an elderly viewer who has been tithing since childhood that she wouldn’t have health issues, and therefore medical expenses, if she was tithing properly. The viewer said that she and her husband are “retired and living on a small pension and Social Security income” and “barely have any money” because of her husband’s medical expenses.

She asked Robertson if it would be “wrong to use [tithe] money towards medical expenses instead?”

Seeing that Robertson insisted that even people about to fall into bankruptcy must continue to tithe, we were not surprised that Robertson told the viewer no. In fact, Robertson went as far as to say that as long as she tithes she will stay healthy and as a result not even encounter medical bills.

Citing Malachi, Robertson said: “Your husband has all these medical problems because the ‘devour’ has not been rebuked. You need to rebuke him. You give your tithes faithfully and God said, ‘I will rebuke the devour,’ the person that is eating up your money and eating up your health. So you want to be healthy? That’s a promise in the Word.”

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 6, 2013 at 10:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

I've given you a source that looks at about a year. Demos up.

I can bury you in sources where independents are rising.

Doesn't matter you don't listen to reason. Imagine that.

I'm done.

Posted by: P5harri

October 6, 2013 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

P5: "I can bury you in sources where independents are rising.">>

Good. I'm an independent. We need more people like me.

P5: "I'm done.">>

As far as arguments go, you were done before you started.

Posted by: fayfreethinker

October 6, 2013 at 1 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

"do you consider yourself a Republican, Democrat, or independent?"

I'm a Green. There are still other choices.

Posted by: Coralie

October 7, 2013 at 3:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

As usual, I read jeffieboy making profound pronouncements, but no reasoning why he is right.

jeffieboy, you do understand that "Obamacare" is not really health care provided to people, but mostly regulation of the health care insurers, right?

Any actual information about why health care reform is bad? Ted Cruz used up 21 hours of speaking, and could have told us something about why it is bad, but he wasted it and told us nothing.

Posted by: User13

October 7, 2013 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Those nutcases in the House have constitutional authority to appropriate money while neither the Senate nor the Executive branch does. As a result without the House no money is appropriated. Thank God for that.

Posted by: jeffieboy

jeffieboy, have you forgotten that the House has to pass appropriation bills that the Senate also will pass and the President will sign?

They don't just get to pass what they want.

Posted by: User13

October 7, 2013 at 3:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal )