Obstructionist absolutists

Charles Blow, writing for the New York Times, discusses the GOP failure to pass a repeal of the Affordable Care Act and of the nasty guy’s role in the mess. As part of his discussion Blow wrote:

The loss is likely also the downside of Republican gerrymandering.

In the redrawing of districts following the 2010 census, Republicans created incredibly safe, ideologically pure districts with fewer dissenters. This protected more seats, but it also meant that the people who hold those seats have little to no incentive to ever compromise.

Republicans created hard-line districts that produced hard-line congressmen: obstructionist absolutists are gerrymandering’s political offspring.

These people weren’t elected to govern, but to impede governance. Their mandate isn’t to generate ideas and solve problems by the effective exercise of government. Their singular crusade is that government is ineffective and the solution is to forever see government itself as the problem. Ideas for them are anathema.

Blow notes that after the big defeat the nasty guy blamed Speaker Paul Ryan (the buck stops … somewhere else). The nasty guy tweeted an alert for his base to watch Jeanine Pirro’s show on Fox News in which Pirro savaged Ryan.

However, in the end, this may well be a disastrous move. You don’t throw under the bus one of the only people who would stand between you and members of your own party who may one day be asked to impeach you.

A wounded Ryan might well sit back and watch, as the world consumes Trump.

Suffering from…

It has been interesting to watch the GOP grapple with not having Obama to veto their foolishness. Those gazillion votes to repeal the Affordable Care Act were highly symbolic when they knew Obama would veto whatever they did. But a repeal effort now means real consequences for real people. And real people tend to protest. Even so, discussions of repeal continue. House Speaker Paul Ryan recently said (in a rare bout of honesty):

[C]learly there will be a transition and a bridge so that no one is left out in the cold, so that no one is worse off. The purpose here is to bring relief to people who are suffering from Obamacare so that they can get something better.

He later clarified that part of “no one is worse off” applies only during the transition. Worse off once the GOP replacement is in place? We can guess.

Melissa McEwen of Shareblue takes a look at another phrase: “bring relief to people who are suffering from Obamacare.” Who, exactly, is “suffering from” Obamacare?

The 20 million people who now have access to healthcare? Nope.

Those whose premiums have gone up? Even if they did, their premiums are still lower than before the ACA went into effect and will be lower than whatever the GOP cooks up.

The insurance companies, the ones that threaten to pull out of the exchange? These companies have made great profits and their stock prices have zoomed up four and five times the increase in the Dow since 2009. Perhaps under the ACA their profits aren’t as astronomical as they’d like.

Maybe it is the GOP “suffering from” Obamacare.

Secure his legacy

I shoveled two inches of snow off my driveway this afternoon. The bottom inch had been rained on, so it was heavy. My sister, 100 miles north, reported a foot of snow. Her backyard deck is now closed. But temperatures could get up to 55F in a couple days.



A couple days ago I wrote that there were four types of candidates that Obama could nominate for the Supremes. It appears Obama played a feint by beginning to vet an Olive Branch candidate – the Republican Gov. Brian Sandoval of Nevada. This idea had several progressive groups and many Senate Democrats expressing their horror and threatening to block the nomination. Still, Mitch McConnell and fellow GOP senators didn't budge from their pledge to ignore anyone Obama sent their way.

So no point in the Olive Branch candidate.

Joan McCarter of Daily Kos sums it up:

[GOP senators have] shown how much room there is for President Obama to name a candidate that's progressive, that will secure his legacy for a generation to come. Which is exactly what he should do. It's worth taking that stand. Doing so—giving Democratic Senate candidates the opportunity to run on cementing that legacy—makes it that much more likely that next January there will be a Democratic Senate to confirm his nominee.

On of those stubborn senators is Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire. She's caught in a bind. If she gives any hint of being willing to simply meet with a Supreme Court nominee conservative groups will find a primary challenger who will run to her right. They've been threatening that for months. But with a deadline of June 10 for challenger to file, she doesn't have time after that to be convincingly conciliatory by November.

Senate Democrats have begun a shaming campaign, highlighting the GOP obstruction. And outside fundraising groups are asking for money because they see all those seats occupied by people like Ayotte and see a strong chance to flip the Senate.



The same conservative groups behind the GOP's refusal to consider any Supreme Court nominee Obama might name have also issued an "aggressively conservative" budget they are telling GOP House members to pass. And there are enough members willing to listen to make Speaker Ryan's job impossible. Expect big budget battles, even if entirely in the House.

Aggressively conservative? Yeah, things like cutting funding of Planned Parenthood (expected), of clean air and water enforcement, of grants to shelters under the Violence Against Women Act, of small business disaster assistance, and of healthy food for school children. I'm sure the list isn't complete. In other words, finish off gutting the tattered social safety net so there is absolutely no assistance to anybody beyond the 1% (who will benefit greatly from favorable trade deals, gov't contracts, and tax cuts and loopholes).