For more than four hours, a confederacy of Republicans assembled in the Caucus Room...plotting

[bigtree]

Thursday, May 3, 2012 12:00 am

Early on, Obama and Rangel targeted by GOP

HERB BOYD Special to the AmNews

For more than four hours, a confederacy of Republicans assembled in the Caucus Room, an upscale restaurant in D.C., only hours after Barack Obama’s inauguration, plotting ways in which to immediately begin undermining his presidency.

This meeting included such senior politicos of the GOP as House members Eric Cantor, Jeb Hensarling, Pete Hoekstra, Dan Lungren, Kevin McCarthy, Paul Ryan and Pete Sessions. The Senate members were Tom Coburn, Bob Corker, Jim DeMint, John Ensign and Jon Kyl.

Among the other Republican notables were Newt Gingrich and strategist Frank Luntz. Oddly, neither Mitch McConnell nor John Boehner was present.

Luntz, the speechwriter, the same man Sean Hannity had thrown out of Fox Studios in 2008, was the organizer of the affair, according to Robert Draper in his recently published book “Do Not Ask What Good We Do: Inside the U.S. House of Representatives” (Free Press, 2012).

. . . here’s how Draper quoted (Gingrich) at the end of that strategy session in the Caucus Room.

“You will remember this day,” he began. “You’ll remember this as the day the seeds of 2012 were sown . . . ”


read article: http://www.amsterdamnews.com/politics_noir/early-on-obama-and-rangel-targeted-by-gop/article_3582501e-953e-11e1-9528-0019bb2963f4.html

[ChairmanAgnostic]

1. is it okay to say, "TRAITOROUS BASTARDS" in public here?

I wasn't sure, so I thought I would ask.

[madokie]

3. As far as I'm concerned it damn sure is

Cause that is what they are, traitorous bastards

[bigtree]

9. yep

"TRAITOROUS BASTARDS" works just fine here

[Gold Metal Flake]

17. It's never treasonous enough. Not any more.

There is no bottom to this rabbit hole.

[Odin2005]

2. They all look like sociopaths.

Their eyes are soulless.

[kentuck]

4. It's not treason...

It's only politics. Right?

[JHB]

22. I think it would be treason if foreign nationals were involved...

...by the way gentlemen, can we see your donor lists?

[Rex]

5. Richard Nixon really set the standard for the GOP

and the RWR took it quantum bad to the next level...that is why they never get charges filed against them for traitorous behavior imo. Their Jesus was Ollie North and just like all the other traitorous scum...they will get away with it.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

6. Until Newt of Grinch took over the House, they were not so evil, so

purely deceptive and obstructive. Before then, GOPers and Dems would frequently socialize, compromise, make deals, posture, then do what they thought was best for the country, even if they only got 80% of what they wanted. That stopped with GRinch, and has only gotten worse with the Tea Bagger crowd.

[JHB]

23. Right. Nixon set the stage, Reagan got a crowd in the house, but...

...it was the tag team of Newt and Rush that addicted them to radical/obstructionist crack and put the long knives into anyone who got in the way.

Generously funded by billionaires and business interests (and, let us not ignore, partly enabled by Democrats chasing that same money).

[Gregorian]

7. Corporate "patriots", a threat to the nation.

[hifiguy]

8. A "confederacy of Republicans" is a great term.

The Confederates were anti-American traitors just like the Repukes.

[peace frog]

10. Your "seeds of 2012" will yield rotten fruit

Take a big bite of your poison harvest, GOPers, it's as good as you're gonna get this November.

[usrname]

11. It's not because

the two targeted men were black, was it?

[bigtree]

13. well,

Of course, Geithner is also listed as a target.

I'd say that their race provided conservatives with an opportunity to attempt to define the president and Rep. Rangel outside of whatever mainstream they could concoct among their own voluntarily segregated following. Standard stuff. We can also see the wider outlines of the republicans' 'personal' attacks which are heavily tinged with racial overtones, and, in some cases, outright racial slurs.

from the article:

"The plan they concocted was to attack Obama personally, Draper wrote. The man, the Republicans conceded, was too popular."

[usrname]

12. From the article:

“The only way we’ll succeed is if we’re united,” said Ryan, a Wisconsin representative. “If we tear ourselves apart, we’re finished.”

Apparently, unionizing is all right if you're a republican.

Again, IOKIYAAR

[Canuckistanian]

14. Strange, isn't it?

You'll NEVER hear stories of powerful Democrats even COORDINATING meetings like that.

Senate and House members AND strategery wonks in the same room, for a common purpose on HOURS notice?

That's how the GOP stays relevant. They have a unity of purpose that's almost Borg-like.

This is what we're up against.

[malaise]

15. This is slowly gaining attention

Spread it like a virus

[just1voice]

16. That's what (R)s do and nobody holds them responsible for their crimes

For example, look up "Iraq on the Record", it's a database of 237 lies told by Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld and Powell in 125 public appearances, a clear plot to lead America to war for political reasons.

That is treason too but we are told to forget about them.

[Snarkoleptic]

18. A confederacy, indeed...

[Marr]

19. I honestly don't see the problem. I wish the

Democrats had been half as bold in blocking every single thing the last administration wanted to do.

They're the opposition party. We shouldn't be surprised when they oppose things. Instead of droning on about "bipartisanship", their opponents should be endlessly pointing out all the things they're trying to do, but cannot because the other party is being obstructionists. Obstructionists pay at the polls, so long as they're obstructing popular policies.

If Obama had, for instance, pushed for Medicare for all instead of running over to the right to pass something a few Republicans liked, this election season would be about the great thing we could've had if not for the assholes. Instead, Team Third Way has saddled the party with a lot of the opposition's own right-wing policies in a (claimed) effort to reach bipartisan consensus.

The Third Way Democrats' extreme willingness to "compromise" is precisely the thing that assures that the other side never will. Why should they? If they don't give an inch, they can get unpopular, corporate policies without having to publicly embrace them. They get their cake and eat it, too.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

20. shirley, ewe geste.

The Democrats standing up against the administration? When bin Laden was out there somewhere? When we reached our 123d Code Orange?
When duct tape and plastic sheeting shortages were about to cause a destruction of our entire civilization?
When Bush's codpiece made a perfect landing on an aircraft carrier, bearing a sign that the White House did not plan, (except for the design, color, font, materials, and placement on the carrier)?

Those democrats, but for a few exceptions, Feingold, Durbin, and Pelosi, to name a few, were so afraid of their own shadows, that they took to heading out for their daily fundraisers only when it was cloudy or dark outside.

[bigtree]

21. if you think both party's aspirations have equal merit, or even sincerity

. . . then you could credibly view republican efforts to derail this presidency as some normal political imperative of an opposition party. But, their efforts weren't against an anti-government, corporatist, anti-constitutional, anti-minority, anti-women, anti-gay, anti-environmental, or militarist administration. Their efforts were against a presidency which aspired to what most Democrats accept as a sincere reflection of what they regard as humanist and progressive. Their intentions were to elevate their objectionable, dangerous, discriminatory, damaging, and thieving agenda over the needs and concerns that a clear majority of Americans were anxious and desperate to advance.

The fact that this President sought to include republican initiatives in legislation was more of a reflection of the political realities of a divided government than it was just some arbitrary appeasement. We can argue that a more confrontational approach would have yielded better results, but, to your point, we're not really talking about Democratic obstruction of some agenda desired or required by some majority of Americans.

In fact, many of the initiatives Democrats do obstruct are designed for the benefit of narrow, corporate interests; quite different from republican efforts, so I don't see proof of the equivalency you're expressing.

More importantly, we can see the petty and personal outlines of that initial opposition which has persisted throughout the term. Much of it is, as I express in a post above, heavily tinged with racial overtones, and, in some cases, outright racial slurs. This isn't just politics which Democrats should look to emulate in some way. It's a special brand of republican disunion from the needs and desires of the majority of Americans which seeks to divide on the basis of our differences alone, just for these politicians' personal political gain. It has very little to do with policy and everything to do with their hunger for power and their corporatist mission to neuter government for all but the Defense industry and whatever lines their pockets with our tax dollars.

[Marr]

24. Did I express anything like support for the other party?

I'm saying this is the reality of the system, and it's naive to expect it to function like a happy playground. The other team is going to block your legislation with everything they've got, if they're serious about pushing their agenda. If the policies they're blocking are popular, then they'll pay for it at the polls.

I understand that compromise on certain small points is always going to be necessary in politics. If government were a ship, you'd have to let the minority party arrange the deck chairs while the majority party sets the course.

What we've seen is not compromise, but the adoption of the other team's policies and fundamental beliefs. We have a Democratic president who talks about (and builds policy around) the idea of "job creators" driving the economy, for instance. That's trickle down economics, and it is irreconcilable with the traditional liberal view of the economy.

We've watched the minority party set the course, then lounge on deck and complain when we get there. You'd have to be an idiot to employ such a strategy, and I don't think Obama is an idiot. I think it's fairly obvious that he wants to go to most of the same ports the Republicans do. So to speak.

[bigtree]

25. for that to be true

. . . you need to make an entirely new political box for Obama's legislative record, because, politically, most bills passed and signed only contain bits and pieces of republican-originated proposals. Overall, he's advanced Democratic-originated and Democratic-crafted bills. He's also ordered numerous progressive actions in his executive capacity. I just don't see the evidence that his agenda or record is, somehow, a republican one. To make that judgement, I think, you have to give way too much credence to republicans. The republican party has actively obstructed most of the changes that this administration has managed into action or law. Your premise just doesn't add up, doesn't relate -- except, maybe as a cliche or as rhetoric for the inattentive.

[Marr]

28. I see a lot of broadbrush claims there, but no specifics.

Maybe I'm just too inattentive to catch them.

Look at Obama's signature piece of legislation to date: The Affordable Care Act. It originated on the right, and was initially pushed by Republican legislators. It's Republican policy that the Democrats now own, thanks to a slow process of "compromise". Odd how the compromise took us from something the vast majority supports (single payer), to something the right came up with.

[bigtree]

29. well, that's one argument

. . . hard to argue that it's some conservative legislation though with the health care act being on most republican's short list for total repeal. You may well not like the bill, but it contains a majority of initiatives not supported by republicans, not initiated by republicans and not voted on by the overwhelming majority of republicans. calling it republican legislation isn't supported by anything more than rhetoric; not by votes and not by any actual support from republicans or conservatives.

[newspeak]

26. you see no problem when the actions of the previous administration

has left american people without decent jobs, no jobs and losing their homes; while compromising our infrastructure? Putting the people and country at risk; such an environment that needed strong economic measures with repugs willing to block those measures for their own political gain? You see no problem with that?

[Marr]

27. I think I just stated the opposite.

If the minority party during the previous administration had blocked legislation as stubbornly and assiduously as the current minority party has done, we'd all be better off. Instead, we got "bipartisanship", which somehow, mysteriously, only ever works in favor of corporate America and the far right.