Daffy GOP May Have Finally Gone Too Looney Tunes for America

Last week things in our reality-based centrist country seemed to reach a tipping point as John Boehner and the House of Representatives nearly let the government of the United States go over a cliff because the conservative Tea Party refused to negotiate over the repeal of Obamacare. Never mind that it was impossible to repeal Obamacare, which has nothing to do with the budget anyway. Reality means nothing to orange technicolor cartoon characters like Boehner. If the Koch Brothers or the Tea Party say "Beep Beep" he will jump right over a cliff, no problem.





This time Boehner didn't even have the Acme Tunnel Art Set to paint a get-away for himself on the rocks. In fact, he acted the part of Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius, so convincingly he nearly killed his own Party in a puff of dust at the bottom of the canyon. The "box canyon" that is - the dead end where he and the Tea Party found themselves when Obama refused to negotiate with cartoonish terrorists who don't live in the real world.



People have been predicting the end of the Tea Party since it began. It all started back in 2008 when Sarah Palin appeared on the scene as a Vice Presidential candidate, giving speeches peppered with bizarre metaphors about Musk Oxen and talking about about "Real Americans" (herself and dog-sledding hunter-husband Todd) versus the rest of the country. Her followers, who also considered themselves "Reel 'Mericans" were a mixture of tax-hating Libertarians waving serpentine "Don't Tread on Me" flags, white racists carrying Curious George dolls named "Little Hussein," the Birthers, the Joe the Plumbers, the "Muslin" haters, the Evangelical Holy Rollers. Everyone poked fun at it, from Saturday Night Live to Jon Stewart, but unfortunately the Tea Party was able to win important House seats during the 2010 election giving Republicans the edge. Through red gerrymandered districts, the country is stuck with some of these rodeo clowns. Luckily, the GOP realizes they are stuck with them as well.







This past week, it was no accident that Palin, who now holds no elected office and may never again, suddenly re-appeared on stage with GOP gadfly and "Green Eggs and Ham" lover Senator Ted Cruz on the Washington Mall. They were protesting the very Shutdown that the Teapublicans dreamed of and finally caused by holding the government budget hostage.

Palin is Tea Party royalty, much like the insane Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland who screams "off with their heads" - meaning the government - on every occasion. Ted Cruz, whether he was born in Canada or not, is now the Tea Party King just for "standing up to the establishment," meaning any GOP member who isn't a stark-raving maniac. Together, Cruz and Palin were the Tea Party Dream Team, storming the barricades of Federal Monuments in an act of defiance that they see as a Patriot's gesture, and the rest of the country sees as an illogical embarrassment.



Waving Confederate Flags in front of the White House - never a good idea! Too Bad Foghorn Leghorn wasn't there to explain it to you, son! Many southern GOP Congress people were missing in action that day - there is a line you can cross, even in the Tea Party.



But at least Palin and Cruz admitted they were mostly trying to raise money for the 2016 Presidential race, proving once again that the GOP believes it deserves government money and benefits, not to mention power. They just don't want anyone else to share it.



None of the Cruz/Palin grandstanding even mattered. In the end, the clueless Tea Party couldn't repeal Obamacare, which is the Law of the Land. The Tea Party Representatives began to sound like that Looney Tune of Daffy Duck and Bugs Bunny screaming "Duck Season!" and "Rabbit Season!" until Daffy is so confused he begs Bugs to shoot him in the head. And that's kinda what happened - with Boehner in neutral, the grown-ups in the Senate had to step in and save his bacon. Then Nancy Pelosi got nearly 200 Democratic Reps to vote with Republicans to stop the shutdown.



The GOP has become a Party without a head. All they have is Droopy Dog RNC Chairman Reince Priebus, who was appointed, not elected. Paul Ryan could have stepped up sooner, but he is trying to save his own career. Tea Party voters only had one thing to say on forums, blogs and on the news - they "like" it that Cruz was being obstructionist. "That's what we sent him there for," they said, ignoring the fact that the shutdown was hurting innocent Americans all across the country. It was all about "showing Obama" who was boss. Putting the uppity Negro back in his place, at the expense of closing down our own government.

Is it any wonder Harry Reid chose to call them a "bunch of anarchists?" People like Palin and Cruz want to run the government by destroying the government. Forget Daffy Duck - they sound more like Marvin the Martian. If they had a Space Modulator, they'd probably be pointing at Washington before demanding the reinstitution of slavery in Virginia, like some antebellum Dr. Evil.



Republicans focused on blowing up the Earth, that is, their own heads - that is, their leadership - fought against John Boehner, Mitch McConnell and old-timers like John McCain, once Palin's running mate, now considered too-far-left to be a "real conservative."

But what did Cruz and Company gain, except for some impromptu fundraising? Nothing, as Rachel Maddow pointed out in the graphic below. The only thing the House Tea Party received from the Obama Administration was income verification for people signing up for ACA Obamacare - because, guess what? That was written into the law already! So in effect, they got nothing. Zippo. Yet they kept thinking of new demands, which made them sound even more deranged.



But how bad is the damage, really? Haven't we heard the prediction that the GOP is over, done with, finished too many times to count? Don't the Right Wingers always take a moment to say a few Apocalyptic prayers and come roaring back with a new scheme?

Michele Bachmann, who is the Minnesota version of Sarah Palin, has crashed and burned due to campaign finance problems, and isn't running again. But her conservative district will probably try to find some other gal with a grating midwestern accent and a religious fervor for conspiracy theories. But even Bachmann has to realize that no matter how hard she prayed, Obamacare was never repealed. Isn't that also an answer from God? Could it be that God wants the poor to be cared for, as it says in the Bible by, you know, Jesus Christ?



It could just be that this time the Tea Party Jihadists took their holy war just one Tasmanian Devil hissy fit too far.


Ultra-Conservative Pundit Michelle Malkin on Fox News
via Daily Kos

At least now we don't have to wonder what the Tea Party will do when cornered - when the going got weird, the weird turned pro! They snarled and starting spinning and lying and whatever they had to do. And now the general public has had a glimpse of the real Tea Party that cannot be forgotten so easily.

Not only was their idealogical last stand about denying health coverage to sick and possibly dying people, they openly stated that Obamacare was just the first thing they wanted to repeal or destroy. They wanted President Obama to cut "entitlements" (dreadful word) such as Social Security and Medicare for the elderly. Meanwhile, they also wanted to protect Koch Brothers interests like Big Oil and the Tar Sands Pipeline. All this comes after a session in which the GOP cut Food Stamp money for the poorest Americans from the farm bill, and cut WIC benefits for mothers and babies. Yet they wasted $24 Billion on this useless Shutdown based on ideological nonsense.


To quote ditzy GOP pundit Peggy Noonan in her last post before Romney lost the election last year, you can feel the change in the air. Or see it in the polls. Well, Peggy Noonan never believed the polls about Mitt Romney, and she probably won't believe the polls now. But the truth wins, as we saw in 2012, and it's winning again. The GOP lost and it's time to say "That's All Folks!"

Obamacare Sign Up Begins Today!!!!

We had to endure years of waiting and a government shutdown by the Tea Party wing of the GOP, but as of today Obamacare is law and now folks can start signing up for exchanges in every state.

www.Healthcare.Gov

Find the Marketplace in Your State

Don't get discouraged if the websites go down. That is actually a good sign that millions are logging on to finally get health care. The actual coverage doesn't kick in until January, and you have until December to sign up, so don't panic.

It's 8 a.m. in the east. At this hour, Obamacare is live http://t.co/pdECi7EtRS
— HuffPost Politics (@HuffPostPol) October 1, 2013

Help get out the word about the #Obamacare health care exchange. Join me and change your avatar to this. #GetCovered pic.twitter.com/BycvPVif3i
— D Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets) October 1, 2013

Obama Jokes about GOP View of Obamacare

The President spoke in Maryland yesterday about the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) about to kick in for millions of Americans. He also had a few laughs at the expense of the GOP loonies who keep trying to repeal or stop Obamacare, even if they have to shut down the government.

 Just this week, we had Senator Ted Cruz R-Texas attempting a Filibuster (or Fauxlibuster or Sillybuster) to somehow stop the process of implementing Obamacare, with help from Sen. Mike Lee of Utah. Members of their own party from John McCain to Senator Bob Corker R-TN have stepped in to tell him off for his idiotic stance that has divided the Republican Party. Huffington Post reporter Ryan Grim also reported that Cruz himself doesn't need the Senate Health Care plan because - guess what? - he is covered by his wife's elegant-gold-plated health care plan from her employer Goldman Sachs. Sorry Ted Cruz - you fail at all the things, you big phoney hypocrite!

Quotes and Tweets on SnarkAmendment:
Smackdown: Sen. Bob Corker Vs. Ted Cruz on Obamacare
Line forms to criticize Ted Cruz after Filibuster Attempt
Talkative Ted Cruz fumbles to Fauxlibuster Finish Line
Green Eggs and Sham ~ The Ted Cruz Fauxlibuster Continues
Ted Cruz Attempts to Filibuster Obamacare

The Tea Party members quoted by the President include Rep. Michele Bachmann R-Minn. for saying Obamacare will "literally kill people" ; Rep. Bill O'Brien R-NH who compared ACA to the Fugitive Slave Act ; and Rep. John Fleming R-LA for the hyperbolic statement that Obamacare is the biggest threat to our country EVER, in history, EVER!

Transcript at WhiteHouse.Gov

THE PRESIDENT: It is interesting, though, how over the last couple years, the Republican Party has just spun itself up around this issue. And the fact is the Republicans’ biggest fear at this point is not that the Affordable Care Act will fail. What they’re worried about is it’s going to succeed. (Applause.) I mean, think about it. If it was as bad as they said it was going to be, then they could just go ahead and let it happen and then everybody would hate it so much, and then everybody would vote to repeal it, and that would be the end of it.

So what is it that they’re so scared about?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: You! (Laughter and applause.)

THE PRESIDENT: They have made such a big political issue out of this, trying to scare everybody with lies about “death panels” and “killing granny” -- (laughter) -- right? “Armageddon.” So if it actually works, they’ll look pretty bad. If it actually works, that will mean that everything they were saying really wasn’t true and they were just playing politics.

AUDIENCE: That's right!






THE PRESIDENT: Just the other day, one Republican in Congress said we need to shut this thing down before the marketplaces open and people get to see that they’ll be getting coverage and getting these subsidies because -- and I’m going to quote him here -- he said, “It’s going to prove almost impossible to undo Obamacare.” (Laughter.) Right? So in other words, we’ve got to shut this thing down before people find out that they like it. (Laughter and applause.) That’s a strange argument. Don’t you think that’s a strange argument?

AUDIENCE: Yes!

THE PRESIDENT: And the closer we get, the more desperate they get. I mean, over the last few weeks the rhetoric has just been cranked up to a place I’ve never seen before. One congressman said that Obamacare is “the most dangerous piece of legislation ever passed.” (Laughter.) Ever. In the history of America, this is the most dangerous piece of legislation. (Laughter.) Creating a marketplace so people can buy group insurance plans -- the most dangerous ever.

You had a state representative somewhere say that it’s “as destructive to personal and individual liberty as the Fugitive Slave Act.”

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Think about that. Affordable health care is worse than a law that let slave owners get their runaway slaves back.

AUDIENCE: No!

THE PRESIDENT: I mean, these are quotes. I’m not making this stuff up. And here’s one more that I’ve heard -- I like this one -- we have to -- and I’m quoting here -- “We have to repeal this failure before it literally kills women, kills children, kills senior citizens.” Now, I have to say -- that one was from six months ago -- I just want to point out we still have women -- (laughter) -- we still have children, we still have senior citizens. (Applause.)

All this would be funny if it wasn’t so crazy. And a lot of it is just hot air. A lot of it is just politics. I understand that. But now the tea party Republicans have taken it to a whole new level because they’re threatening either to shut down the government, or shut down the entire economy by refusing to let America pay its bills for the first time in history -- unless I agree to gut a law that will help millions of people.

AUDIENCE: Booo --

THE PRESIDENT: Think about this. Shutting down the government just because you don’t like a law that was passed and found constitutional, and because you don’t like the idea of giving people new access to affordable health care -- what kind of idea is that?

80 GOP Leaders Favor Gay Marriage

Amazing developments as groups rush to file Amicus (friend-of-the-court) briefs in favor of Gay Marriage before the Supreme Court meets to decide whether such laws are constitutional, specifically California's widely despised Prop 8, which states that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

ABC News

The issue of same sex marriage is dividing the Republican Party as a group of more than 80 prominent members of the GOP ranging from Dick Cheney's daughter to four former governors have signed an amicus brief before the Supreme Court advocating for the legalization of gay marriage.

One of the signers confirmed for ABC News the existence of the brief signed by the Republicans and said it would be submitted to the United States Supreme Court this week. The deadline to submit briefs is Thursday.

. . . Signers included former congresswoman Mary Bono Mack of California, former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman and Meg Whitman, who supported Prop 8 when she ran for governor of California in 2010. Representatives Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, Richard Hanna of New York and former GOP national chairman Ken Mehlman also signed. In addition, three former Massachusetts governors -- William Weld, Jane Swift, and Paul Cellucci -- along with former New Jersey governor Christine Todd Whitman are signers. The list also includes Republican attorney and Romney senior adviser Ben Ginsberg and other high profile GOP leaders, strategists, consultants, and staffers.

Some big name supporters of same sex marriage who have not signed the brief include former vice president Dick Cheney, former first lady Laura Bush, and former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

That's amazing enough, but look at this:

CNN

On Thursday, dozens of American corporations, including Apple, Alcoa, Facebook, eBay, Intel, and Morgan Stanley will submit an amicus brief in the landmark Hollingsworth v. Perry case broadly arguing to the U.S. Supreme Court that laws banning same-sex marriages, like California's ballot initiative Proposition 8, are unconstitutional under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.
According to a draft copy obtained by Fortune, the companies argue that such laws "send an unmistakeable signal that same-sex couples are in some way inferior to opposite-sex couples, a proposition that is anathema to amici's commitment to equality and fair treatment to all."

At least 60 companies had committed to signing the brief as of Tuesday evening, according to Joshua Rosenkranz, who is counsel of record on the brief and head of the Supreme Court and appellate litigation practice at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe. That number is expected to rise by Thursday, however, according to Rosenkranz. Others who have already committed to sign include AIG, Becton Dickinson, Cisco, Cummins, Kimpton, Levi Strauss, McGraw Hill, NCR, Nike, Office Depot, Oracle, Panasonic, Qualcomm, and Xerox.

Marco Rubio Flubs GOP Response to SOTU With Terrible Thirst

Source: Daily Kos

You can't make this stuff up. With the whole world watching, Senator Marco Rubio (R-Florida) guzzled his way to infamy last night as he stopped in the middle of the GOP response to the State of the Union to reach off-camera and grab a bottle of water.


.


While the whole thing is absurd and may seem petty, this was Rubio's big chance to show he is Presidential enough to get the nomination from his party in 2016. And yet all anyone will remember is his dry mouth and overwhelming thirst. He apparently forgot about Bobby Jindal's weak response to the 2009 SOTU, Paul Ryan guzzling water during the Veep Debate, and the Mitt Romney parody on SNL showing him guzzling plain white milk to drown his sorrows. Now Rubio has joined the group of sweaty politicians who look nervous on camera and who need more libation than the average guy. Not a good place to be.

Twitter went cray-cray of course - see all the quotes on my other blog:
Snark Amendment: Stay Thirsty My Friend ~ Rubio Water Bottle Gate

Memory Lane . . .

Hillary Rocked Both Houses of Congress

I was so glad to see Hillary Clinton so fiesty with Congress after her recent illness. Of course the Tea Party didn't cut her any slack - she was grilled mercilessly by Congressmen and Senators over the Benghazi incident. Chris Matthews compared her to Gulliver among the Lilliputians, a giant among the little people, in Jonathan Swift's famous novel. Their questions were really ad hominem attacks used to boost their own pitiful careers with an ever-diminishing GOP. The Good Old Boys belched out Fox News talking points that bore little resemblance to reality. "Read the report," Hillary kept saying to them, because it was obvious they hadn't read anything, and were playing "gotcha" more than trying to get to the bottom of the murders of four government officials.

Poseurs like John McCain were especially egregious. He has been using Benghazi since before the election to help himself to another committee chairmanship (Harry Reid nixed that idea) and to wring out more air-time on Sunday morning talk shows. He pretended that Benghazi is somehow different from every other overseas attack, as if this time we should have known from the first moment everything that happened and why. McCain, who has more top secret security clearance than almost anyone, surely knows better. His performance was disingenuous faux-outrage. By contrast Hillary appeared dignified and full of common sense.

The joke of the day was when Senator Rand Paul said if he had been President, he would have fired Hillary for not reading every telegram from Benghazi. President? Delusions of grandeur much? Not to mention the fact that if George W. Bush had read all his telegrams and reports from, say, FBI agents here in the United States, then 911 need not have happened either. Right, Senator Paul? 3000 people died in that attack, plus thousands more over the course of two wars longer than any our military has ever engaged. But please, Senator Paul, proceed with your delusional life. We all know Hillary is much more likely to be President someday, not you.

More Quotes and Tweets from her Day on the Hill:
Snark Amendment: Hillary Kicks Butt on Benghazi


With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk last night who decided to kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again, Senator.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Obama Presser on Debt Ceiling: "Not a Deadbeat Nation"

So I want to be clear about this: The debt ceiling is not a question of authorizing more spending. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize more spending. It simply allows the country to pay for spending that Congress has already committed to.

These are bills that have already been racked up, and we need to pay them. So, while I'm willing to compromise and find common ground over how to reduce our deficits, America cannot afford another debate with this Congress about whether or not they should pay the bills they've already racked up. If congressional Republicans refuse to pay America's bills on time, Social Security checks, and veterans benefits will be delayed.

We might not be able to pay our troops, or honor our contracts with small business owners. Food inspectors, air traffic controllers, specialist who track down loose nuclear materials wouldn't get their paychecks. Investors around the world will ask if the United States of America is in fact a safe bet. Markets could go haywire, interest rates would spike for anybody who borrows money. Every homeowner with a mortgage, every student with a college loan, every small business owner who wants to grow and hire.

It would be a self-inflicted wound on the economy. It would slow down our growth, might tip us into recession. And ironically it would probably increase our deficit. So to even entertain the idea of this happening, of the United States of America not paying its bills, is irresponsible. It's absurd. As the speaker said two years ago, it would be, and I'm quoting Speaker Boehner now, "a financial disaster, not only for us, but for the worldwide economy."

So we've got to pay our bills. And Republicans in Congress have two choices here. They can act responsibly, and pay America's bills, or they can act irresponsibly and put America through another economic crisis. But they will not collect a ransom in exchange for not crashing the American economy. The financial wellbeing of the American people is not leverage to be used. The full faith and credit of the United States of America is not a bargaining chip. And they better choose quickly, because time is running short.

The last time republicans in Congress even flirted with this idea, our AAA credit rating was downgraded for the first time in our history. Our businesses created the fewest jobs of any month in nearly the past three years, and ironically, the whole fiasco actually added to the deficit.

So it shouldn't be surprising, given all this talk, that the American people think that Washington is hurting rather than helping the country at the moment. They see their representatives consumed with partisan brinkmanship over paying our bills while they overwhelmingly want us to focus on growing the economy and creating more jobs.

So let's finish this debate. Let's give our businesses and the world the certainty that our economy and our reputation are still second to none. We pay our bills, we handle our business, and then we can move on because America has a lot to do.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chuck Todd, NBC: Thank you, sir. As you know, Senate Democrats -- Harry Reid sent you a letter begging you, essentially, to take -- consider some sort of executive action on this debt ceiling issue. I know you've said you're not negotiating on it. Your administration has ruled out the various ideas that have been out there, the 14th Amendment, but just this morning, House -- one of the House Democratic leaders, Jim Clyburn, asked you to use the 14th Amendment and even said sometimes that's what it takes. He brought up the Emancipation Proclamation as saying they took executive action when Congress wouldn't act, and he compared the debt ceiling to that. So are you considering a Plan B? And if not, why not?

OBAMA: Well, Chuck, the issue here is whether or not America pays its bills. We are not a deadbeat nation. And so there's a very simple solution to this: Congress authorizes us to pay our bills. Now, if the House and the Senate want to give me the authority so that they don't have to take these tough votes, if they want to put the responsibility on me to raise the debt ceiling, I'm happy to take it. Mitch McConnell, the Republican leader in the Senate, had a proposal like that last year. And I'm happy to accept it.

But if they want to keep this responsibility, then they need to go ahead and get it done. And, you know, there are no magic tricks here. There are no loopholes. There are no, you know, easy outs. This is a matter of Congress authorizes spending. They order me to spend. They tell me, you need to fund our Defense Department at such-and-such a level, you need to send out Social Security checks, you need to make sure that you are paying to care for our veterans. They lay all this out for me, and -- because they have the spending power.

And so I am required by law to go ahead and pay these bills.

Separately, they also have to authorize a raising of the debt ceiling in order to make sure that those bills are paid. And so what Congress can't do is tell me to spend X and then say, "But we're not going to give you the authority to go ahead and pay the bills."

And I just want to repeat, because I think sometimes the American people understandably aren't following all -- all the debates here in Washington. Raising the debt ceiling does not authorize us to spend more. All it does is say, that America will pay its bills. And we are not a deadbeat nation.

And the consequences of us not paying our bills, as I outlined in my opening statement, would be disastrous. So, I understand the impulse to try to get around this in a simple way. But there's one way to get around this. There's one way to deal with it, and that is for Congress to authorize me to pay for those items of spending that they have already authorized. And the -- you know the -- the notion that Republicans in -- in the House, or maybe some Republicans in the Senate would suggest that in order for us to get our way on our spending priorities, that we would risk the full faith and credit of the United States, that I think is not what the founders intended.

That's now how I think most Americans think our democracy should work. You know they've got a point of view. Democrats in Congress have a point of view. They need to sit down, and -- and work out a compromise.

~~~~~~~~~~~~
Major Garrett: Thank you, Mr. President. As you well know, sir, finding votes for the debt ceiling can sometimes be complicated. You yourselves as a member of the Senate voted against a debt ceiling increase. And in previous aspects of American history, President Reagan in 1985, President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, President Clinton in 1997 all signed deficit reduction deals that were contingent upon or in the context of raising the debt ceiling. You yourself four times have done that; three times those were related to deficit reduction or budget maneuvers.

What Chuck and I and I think many people are curious about is this new adamant desire on your part not to negotiate when that seems to conflict with the entire history in the modern era of American presidents in the debt ceiling and your own history on the debt ceiling. And doesn't that suggest that we are going to go into a default situation, because no one is talking to each other about how to resolve this?

OBAMA: Well, no, Major. I think if you look at the history, getting votes for the debt ceiling is always difficult and budgets in this town are always difficult. I went through this just last year. But what's different is we never saw a situation as we saw last year in which certain groups in Congress took such an absolutist position that we came within a few days of defaulting.

And, you know, the fact of the matter is, is that we have never seen the debt ceiling used in this fashion, where the notion was, you know what, we might default unless we get 100 percent of what we want. That hasn't happened.

Now, as I indicated before, I'm happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits further in a sensible way, although one thing I want to point out is that the American people are also concerned about how we grow our economy, how we put people back to work, how we make sure that we finance our workers getting properly trained and our schools are giving our kids the education we deserve. There's a whole growth agenda which will reduce our deficits that's important, as well.

But what you've never seen is the notion that has been presented so far at least by the Republicans that deficit reduction will only count spending cuts, that we will raise the deficit - or the debt ceiling dollar for dollar on spending cuts. There are a whole set of rules that have been established that are impossible to meet without doing severe damage to the economy. And so what we're not going to do is put ourselves in a position where in order to pay for spending that we've already incurred, that our two options are; we're either going to profoundly hurt the economy, and hurt middle- class families, and hurt seniors, and hurt kids who are trying to go to college, or alternatively we're going to blow up the economy. We're not going to do that.

(OFF-MIKE)

REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) three-month extension for this? What ever Congress sends you, you're OK with?

OBAMA: No, not whatever Congress sends me. They're going to have to send me something that's sensible. And we shouldn't be doing this...

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: ...then we should -- and we shouldn't be doing this on a one to three month time frame. Why would we do that? This is the United States of America, Major. Why -- what -- we can't manage our affairs in such a way that we pay our bills? And we provide some certainty in terms of how we pay our bills? Look I -- I don't - I don't think anybody would consider my position unreasonable here. The -- I have...

(CROSSTALK)

(OFF-MIKE) REPORTER: (INAUDIBLE) talk about this on a daily basis (INAUDIBLE.)

OBAMA: Major, the -- I am happy to have a conversation about how we reduce our deficits. I am not going to have a monthly, or every three months conversation about whether or not we pay our bills. Because that, in and of itself does severe damage. Even the threat of default hurts our economy. It's hurting our economy as we speak. We shouldn't be having that debate.

If we want to have a conversation about how to reduce our deficit, let's have that. We've been having that for the last two years. We just had an entire campaign about it. And by the way, the American people agreed with me, that we should reduce our deficits in a balanced way, that also takes into account the need for us to grow this economy, and put people back to work.

And despite that conversation, and despite the election results, the position that's been taken, on the part of some House Republicans, is that, "Nope, we gotta do it our way. And if we don't, we simply won't pay America's bills."

Well, you know, that -- that can't be -- that can't be a position that is sustainable over time. It's not one that's good for the economy now. It's certainly not going to be the kind of precedent that I want to establish, not just for my presidency, but for future presidents. Even if it was on the other side.

Democrats don't like voting for the debt ceiling when a Republican's president. And yet, you -- you -- but you never saw a situation in which Democrats suggested somehow that we would go ahead and default if we didn't get 100 percent of our way. That's just not how it's supposed to work.

PEW Poll ~ GOP was Big Loser in Fiscal Cliff Battle

PEW Research has found that a majority of Americans approve of Obama's handling and resolution of the Fiscal Cliff crisis.

That doesn't surprise me. I think that most well-informed people understand that the bitter and vindictive GOP wants Obama to fail and enjoys holding America hostage. But the Tea Party members of Congress have no intention of compromising, and John Boehner cannot control his own caucus.

The poll numbers give me hope that in spite of the scary predictions from the media and doomsayers from both side, Obama will win the next battle over the so-called "Debt Ceiling" as well.

Even Republicans in this Poll saw Obama as the winner, and gave their own Party dreadful marks.

Americans Approve Obama, Disapprove Congress

Overall, 48% approve of how Obama handled the negotiations over the tax legislation, while just 19% approve of the job GOP leaders did hammering out the legislation. While Republicans broadly disapprove of how Obama handled the tax measure (77% disapprove), they give GOP leaders only mixed approval ratings – 40% approve while 45% disapprove.

Just 14% of independents approve of the way Republican leaders handled the fiscal cliff talks while 69% disapprove. Independents are divided over how Obama handled the negotiations (41% approve, 42% disapprove). Democrats overwhelmingly approve of Obama’s handling of the negotiations (81% approve) and disapprove of GOP leaders (79% disapprove).

Update on Newtown, Connecticut Shooting

White House Petition seeking Gun Legislation now has over 109,000 signatures:
Sign the Petition Here

Statement by the Medical Examiner: Victims ranged from 3 - 11 wounds apiece - everybody hit more than once - no sign of a struggle - It was one rifle used - lots of bullets - "the bullets are designed in a fashion that the energy is deposited in the tissue, so the bullet stays in" - "devastating injuries" - question from reporter: random or precision shooting? answer: "Both? Very difficult question to answer." Adult wounds similar to those of the children. Shooter and mother will be examined in the morning (Sunday, Dec. 16)


Piers Morgan on CNN refuting some NRA NUT who thinks we need "more guns in schools." OMG
Source

Joining the program remotely from Ann Arbor, MI, the Attorney for the Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners made his case:

"If we could suddenly make all guns disappear, I'd have a different position," he stated. "The simple facts are, guns exist. They are essentially 1800's technology...they're easy to make, they're not going anywhere, they last several human lifetimes with minimal maintenance. So since guns exist, and we know for a fact that the only way to stop an evil person, like the person you were discussing earlier in the show, is to shoot him..."

At this point, Morgan jumped back in, presenting a different angle:

"This is exactly the argument that I have been hearing ever since I joined CNN," he noted. "The argument I keep hearing is well if everybody else was armed, it wouldn't happen. It's a load of total hogwash!"

Siding with the host, Jerrold Nadler added some statistics to the argument:

"The proof of the pudding, is that in every other industrialized country in the world, other than the United States, they have reasonable gun control laws," said the New York Congressman. "They have 100 people a year, not 9,000 or 10,000 a year, killed by guns."

Upon engaging in heated discourse with John Lott, who was attempting to make a case for less legislation, Morgan remained insistent with his stance:

"There are nearly 12,000 murders a year from guns in this country. When are you guys going to focus on that, and stop telling me the answer is more guns. It is not the answer!" he exclaimed to his guest. "How many more kids have to die, before you guys say, 'we want less guns, not more.'"

"I'm upset, because I worry that the gun control laws that you're pushing, have killed people," said Lott, the author of "More Guns, Less Crime."

The man behind "Piers Morgan Tonight" saw things differently:

"Oh what a load of nonsense," he grumbled. "I'm so frustrated, I'm so furious, that these kids, have been blown away again, with legally acquired weapons. Some boy, who's got problems, takes his mother's three weapons – including this ridiculous assault rifle – and goes in a school and kills these kids, and you guys on the gun lobby still want to tell me the answer is more guns. It is madness!"

Goodbye to Traitor Joe Lieberman

Farewell Joe Lieberman! The only good thing to come out of the 2000 election debacle is that you were never one heartbeat away from the Presidency. And I say that as someone who voted for you then realized later we didn't know enough about you.

For instance, in 2009 Lieberman earned the nickname "Traitor Joe" for joining the Republican filibuster against universal health care. Why? Because he was so well-funded by the Insurance Industry, and didn't want to upset them.

There was even a Limerick Written About Him:

A Limerick For Traitor Joe
By Madeleine Begun Kane

Joe Lieberman’s meanness runs deep.
He’s a back-stabbing, Dem-screwing creep,
Who’s determined to kill
The health reform bill.
But at least he will never be VEEP.

Paul Begala on Traitor Joe

. . . the “I” does not stand for "Independent." It stands for "Insurance Industry."

Lieberman says he will join a Republican filibuster against President Obama's health-insurance reforms. You could see this coming from a mile away—actually from 15 years away.

In 1993 and 94, Lieberman consistently opposed President Clinton's reform bill—which did not have a public option. In case you're keeping score at home, Lieberman will filibuster the Obama plan, which has a public option, and he opposed the Clinton reform plan, which did not. Anything that protects consumers, it seems, is a bridge too far for Sen. Lieberman.

Lieberman sided with insurance companies against sick people, and with insurance companies against citizens who want to sue to protect their rights in court. As The New York Times reported, "Many of Mr. Lieberman's friends said he had no alternative but to take this position because it was the one favored by the insurance industry. The industry is important to Connecticut's economy and has generously donated to Mr. Lieberman's campaigns over the years."

More recently, Lieberman joined with his two amigos, John McCain and Lindsey Graham, in some happy warmongering, which they all enjoy so much.
Alex Pareene on Salon

The three amigos of death are back with a hot new Washington Post joint editorial, and you’ll never guess what they’re recommending this time! (War.)

Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., are three of the most respected foreign policy experts in all of Washington. They became three of the most respected foreign policy experts in Washington by following a simple, one-step plan: Always demand more war, everywhere.

Back in 2009, Lieberman suddenly wanted to go bomb-bomb-bomb Iran, sounding much like Republican warmonger Mitt Romney during the election instead of an Ex-Democratic Independent:
From CBS News

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military action against the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq," Lieberman told Bob Schieffer. "And to me, that would include a strike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidence that they have a base at which they are training these people coming back into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

The Independent former Democrat from Connecticut said that he was not calling for an invasion of Iran, but he did say the U.S. should target specific training camps.
"I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air, but they can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," Lieberman said.

Lieberman, who has been one of Congress's most outspoken supporters of the Bush administration's Iraq war policies, said that continuing the fight in Iraq and confronting Iran are necessary for achieving a wider peace in the Middle East.
If the U.S. does not act against Iran, "they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home," Lieberman said.

Dana Milbank on WaPo: Joe's Sad Send-Off

It was a lonely farewell for Joe Lieberman.

When the senior senator from Connecticut stood to give his parting address Wednesday afternoon, just one of his colleagues, Delaware Democrat Tom Carper, was with him on the Senate floor.

Lieberman was excommunicated by his party (he won as an independent in 2006 after losing the Democratic primary) and retired this year rather than face probable defeat. Yet he received little love from the Republicans, either, because despite his apostasies on key issues — the Iraq war, above all — he remained a fairly reliable vote for the Democrats.

The sparse attendance wasn’t unusual for a farewell speech, but it was a sad send-off for a man who was very close in 2000 to becoming a major figure in American political history as the first Jew on a major party’s national ticket. He was denied the vice presidency not by the voters but by the Supreme Court. As he joked in his farewell speech, he was “grateful to have received a half-million more votes than my opponent on the other side — but that’s a longer story.”

Six years later, he was drummed out of his party because of his willingness to embrace Republicans (he received a kiss from George W. Bush after a State of the Union address).

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Michigan Mess: Governor Snyder Guts the Unions

Oh, here we go again, just as in Wisconsin, the Republicans are going after the Unions. What bothers me the most is the lack of transparency and sunshine in the way this Michigan law was struck, with almost no public discussion, and therefore the citizens have been railroaded again. Suddenly springing a new law on a state as large as this, especially with the long history of unions connected to the auto industry is shocking. without public input the process is anti-democracy - not that the GOP cares about that anymore.

This whole thing smells of the Koch Brothers and other out-of-state groups. They must think if they can't win a national election, they will buy a few state governors and wreak havoc.





Huffington Post

Gov. Rick Snyder (R) officially made Michigan a "right-to-work" state on Tuesday, signing into law two bills that significantly diminish the power of unions.

"I have signed these bills into law. ... We are moving forward on the topic of workplace fairness and equality," he said at a press conference on Tuesday evening, just hours after the state House passed the bills.

Right-to-work laws forbid contracts between companies and unions that require all workers to pay the union for bargaining on their behalf. Although business groups and conservatives cast the issue in terms of workplace freedom, unions note that the laws allow workers to opt out of supporting the union although they reap the benefits of the collective bargaining. Since the laws tend to weaken unions generally, unions, as well as President Barack Obama, call the legislation "right to work for less."

. . . Throughout the day, at least 12,500 protesters showed up at the Capitol in Lansing. The gathering occasionally turned ugly, with punches thrown and pepper spray dispersed.

The GOP-controlled state legislature had fast-tracked the two bills, which authorize right-to-work measures for public and private unions in the state, bypassing the normal committee process and public input period.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Bill Moyers on Grover Norquist - It's About the Money

Bill Moyers tells the truth about Grover Norquist. It's not "conservative principles" or some pledge he invented when he was 12 years old. At this point, Norquist wants to save his gravy train with biscuit wheels, aka, his alliance with the Koch Brothers, He's a bought-and-paid-for puppet who harrasses other puppets in the Tea Party.

For. The. Money. That is all.

Bill Moyers writing on Daily Kos

Norquist's efforts: Keep taxes low for his donor base -- billionaires like the Koch brothers and the plutocrats secretly clustered around Norquist's comrade, Karl Rove.

This past election, Norquist's group, Americans for Tax Reform, spent nearly $16 million to support his favored candidates; that's according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Where did that money come from, and what did it buy? Back in the 1990's, it was the tobacco industry backing Norquist's fight against cigarette taxes; now it's pharmaceutical companies, among others. Not long ago, this same Grover Norquist was using his organization to launder money for the notorious lobbyist Jack Abramoff. How about that for tax reform!

Check it out yourself in the documentary Capitol Crimes on our website BillMoyers.com. You'll see the story of how the man who has the Republican Party under his thumb came to Washington to start a revolution and wound up running a racket. Now he's the proxy for the powerful interest groups that finance him.

So, not only does the Norquist Pledge symbolize a "political system short on legitimacy," as Christopher Caldwell wrote. It isn't even about principle or ideology. Conservatism, my foot. It's all about the money.

More on the Fiscal Cliff, Medicare and Retirement Age

Over the weekend, Progressives were trying to come to terms with rumors reported by Ezra Klein and others of a deal involving raising retirement and therefore Medicare eligibility to age 67.

Here's my previous post for background:
Snark Lane: To President Obama and All the Smarmy Wonks in Washington

And here is my collection of quotes to give you an idea of the backlash towards Ezra Klein and Jonathan Chait over the weekend on Twitter and elsewhere:
Snark Amendment: Dems Pop Trial Balloon on Raising Retirement Age

I think my title on the second one is probably wishful thinking, since we don't really know whether this monstrosity is a fake trial balloon floated to make the "real" changes seem better to the base, or if it is nearly a done deal, as Klein and others seem to think. The course of action outlined by Jonathan Chait would be to raise the age, then move those under 67 to Obamacare to bolster the program. But why? To most people, Obamacare just took effect and isn't a tried and true program like Medicare. Life is confusing enough for the elderly new retirees without even more stress heaped on them by bureaucrats in Washington, and done just to make political points with a party that basically doesn't care . . . sorry, I seem to be ranting again - I'll stop.

There is some reason this bad idea keeps getting floated around. Most Democrats just hate the idea that we have to capitulate to the demands of the Republicans and the Tea Party after such a hard-fought campaign, especially to give them something they seem to desperately want in a sadistic way - to punish the elderly and the poor and the sick who need government assistance. *stops ranting again*

Here is a petition you can sign, if nothing else, to make you feel better:
Tell President Obama and Congressional Leadership: Don't accept any deal that raises the Medicare eligibility age or cuts benefits.

Joan Walsh has a great column summing up the whole mess:

Salon: Fiscal Cliff Cruelty

. . . it’s not just Chait who believes the deal is possible. Obama-doubting progressives like my friend Glenn Greenwald point to multiple reports that the president was willing to raise the Medicare eligibility age in order to reach a debt-ceiling “grand bargain” in 2011. And facing suggestions on Twitter (including from me) that the supposed Medicare proposal wasn’t genuine, Ezra Klein tweeted at me and Greenwald: “yes, given how widely reported that was, I’m baffled by the disbelief that age is in the negotiations.” He followed up, when people blamed the messenger (him) for the bad idea, by saying: “I don’t want to raise the Medicare age. I’m reporting that it may happen.”

There are so many things wrong with raising the eligibility age that I still can’t believe it’s under consideration. That’s not doubting Klein; it’s just a failure on my part to imagine that data-driven leaders — Republican or Democrat — would propose it. It doesn’t save money; it’s a shell game that just pushes costs around.

. . . Post-election polls find that two thirds of voters oppose increasing the Medicare eligibility age. Should this deal become reality, it would reinforce the cynicism Americans harbor about government – and about Democrats. Deservedly.
The truth is, Obama should be pushing to lower the Medicare eligibility age, to let those 55 and over opt to buy into the program with their own money. The premiums paid by a younger, healthier cohort would help stabilize the program, while the benefits of getting that population insured earlier would keep costs down later. That’ll never happen, you say? Well, we can make sure it’ll never happen if progressives never ask for it.
Honestly, the only real reason to throw seniors into the Obamacare pool is to put more people at the mercy of private insurance, and weaken both the economic and political basis for Medicare.

SNL Paints Boehner as Bullied by Tea Party

source: gifs from last night

Obama agrees to not raise taxes over the fiscal cliff because he takes pity on John Boehner, depantsed by GOP bullies in the ladies restroom, then pelted with rotten eggs in a burned-out warehouse.

The President: "Leave this poor orange man alone!"

Ha! :)

Simpson's Mr. Burns Explains Fiscal Cliff

LOL - Check out the signs in front of Republican Party Headquarters, too, LOL.

The Best Poll Ever - Grover Who?

Public Policy Polling did a poll which reveals some fun information about our country and the Republican Party. In fact, this is my favorite poll of 2012 so far, with a touch of Schadenfreude and a confirmation that the present-day GOP is out of touch with their own party, which in turn is out of step with the rest of America. And let's face it, some Repubs are just nutty as the proverbial Christmas Fruitcake.

For instance half of the Republicans polled - 49% - see the now-defunct and non-existent since 2010 ACORN group as the reason Obama won - "We Was Robbed by ACORN." OMG. AND they believe Secession is the answer to . . . well, everything. Secede to what, and to where, they seem to have no clue. That's what happens to a party who insists that the Civil War was no big deal, or that we should go back to those wonderful days of slavery, when women couldn't vote, and white men were in charge - oh, and they made a huge mess of things, but women and FREED slaves were there to help them rebuild society.

PPP: Republicans Not Handling Election Results Well

49% of GOP voters nationally say they think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama. We found that 52% of Republicans thought that ACORN stole the 2008 election for Obama, so this is a modest decline, but perhaps smaller than might have been expected given that ACORN doesn't exist anymore.

Some GOP voters are so unhappy with the outcome that they no longer care to be a part of the United States. 25% of Republicans say they would like their state to secede from the union compared to 56% who want to stay and 19% who aren't sure.

More on ACORN dementia here:
Snark Amendment: GOP Nutters Can't Let Go of Imaginary ACORN

More on Secessionists Here:
Snark Lane: The Sound and the Fury of Secessionist Idiots Signifying Nothing
Snark Amendment: Secession Wars!
To Secede, or Merely "Succeed," that is the Question for Red States

But my favorite part is this gem about Grover Norquist, who seems to have so much power in Washington. In the rest of the country, not so much. Grover Who? Bahahahaha!

-Grover Norquist is largely unknown nationally, and among voters who are familiar with him he is generally disliked. Only 15% have a favorable opinion of him to 37% with a negative one, with 48% not holding an opinion one way or the other. Even among Republicans just 18% see him positively, while 23% have an unfavorable view. Only 23% of voters think it's important for politicians to follow Norquist's tax pledge to 39% who think it's not important and 38% who don't have an opinion.

So Grover is either viewed unfavorably, or indifferently - 38% don't even have an opinion!!!!!!!!!!  The opposite of love is not hate, it's indifference. So stick that "Pledge" where the sun never shines, Grover baby. You may be the boogey-man or a demigogue or a demon to certain spineless politicians who have signed over their souls to you, but the rank and file in the heartland basically don't give diddly squat!

In fact, Poppy Bush, ex-President and Republican elder-statesman, had his finger more on the pulse of America when he said last year: "Who the Hell is Grover Norquist?"

Nancy Pelosi Will Use "Discharge Petition" to Force Up or Down Vote on Middle Class Taxes

Nancy Pelosi isn't just going to wait for the White Men in the House to save the Middle Class Tax Cuts. In a clip on The Ed Show, Pelosi says if there is no Deal by Tuesday, she will introduce a "discharge petition" forcing a simple up or down vote on the issue and bypassing the Republican leadership.

I love this plan so much! Tea Party folks will be forced to go on the record either For or Against the Middle Class Tax Cuts. They have to decide whether to save the Middle Class or to bow to big business and Grover Norquist.

The Discharge Petition has been used successfully before, according to MSNBC:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Voter Suppression was Goal in Florida

The only thing surprising about Republicans plotting to suppress the vote in Florida is that some of their own are willing to admit the truth. And we know the same thing happened in Ohio where diminished early voting hours caused long lines. Luckily in both Florida and Ohio, the sheer numbers of voters who turned out to vote for Obama defeated their evil schemes. But this should never happen again! As President Obama said, we need to "fix that."



From Palm Beach Post

Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.
“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.

“They never came in to see me and tell me we had a (voter) fraud issue,” Greer said. “It’s all a marketing ploy.”

Greer is now under indictment, accused of stealing $200,000 from the party through a phony campaign fundraising operation. He, in turn, has sued the party, saying GOP leaders knew what he was doing and voiced no objection.

. . . Wayne Bertsch, who handles local and legislative races for Republicans, said he knew targeting Democrats was the goal.
“In the races I was involved in in 2008, when we started seeing the increase of turnout and the turnout operations that the Democrats were doing in early voting, it certainly sent a chill down our spines. And in 2008, it didn’t have the impact that we were afraid of. It got close, but it wasn’t the impact that they had this election cycle,” Bertsch said, referring to the fact that Democrats picked up seven legislative seats in Florida in 2012 despite the early voting limitations.

This confirms what ex-Governor Charlie Crist had said earlier:

from Huffington Post

"The only thing that makes any sense as to why this is happening and being done is voter suppression," he said.

Crist added, "People have fought and died for our right to vote, and unfortunately our legislature and this governor have decided they want to make early voting less available to Floridians rather than more available ... It's hard for me as an American to comprehend why you don't make democracy as easy as possible to exercise for the people of our state. It's frankly unconscionable."

Grover Norquist: Delusions of Oz

source: buzzfeed
The curtain is finally being pulled back on the little man named Grover Norquist. For years he has terrorized the Cowardly Lions and Tin Men of the Republican Right, warning that if they don't play his game his way and sign his absolutist "No Tax" pledge, the Tea Party money will dry up and they will not get re-elected.

But things are changing.

Jena McGregor on Washing Post writes:

Yet the leader who has the most to lose by the cracks in the Norquist pledge is not any representative who stands up against it and risks offending some voters, but the man who started it in the first place. Norquist’s power base, after all, has always been shaky. All it will take is a few powerful Republicans to actually break the pledge, and the wall will come tumbling down. The pledge’s strength—and Norquist’s power—lies in its universal acceptance among powerful Republicans. If that falls, so does Norquist.

Yes, once the Great and Powerful Oz is shown to be just a little man who doesn't do anything except yell "Boo!" unfortunately can't get anyone to drink his Emerald City Kool-Aid anymore.

Grover is in denial, like the rest of his tribe in the GOP, but he needs to realize that every day new Republicans are going to defect and mutiny from the Pledge not to Raise Taxes that Norquist strong-armed them into signing.

Today my Senator, Bob Corker R-TN, said he wasn't going to honor his tax pledge to Grover Norquist. Of course, I did NOT vote for Corker  - or even his Democratic opponent who was a Tea Partier in disguise - I voted for the Green candidate - but I do feel a sense of pride that a Tennessean is getting out of Grover's clutches ahead of the crowd. And I've said it before, but Corker is not as far-right-right as he pretends to be. He's just a business guy who was Mayor of Chattanooga, and actually had a pretty good reputation for working on all sorts of group projects here. He's a consensus guy, not a stonewaller, and even Norquist knows that (see interview below in which he calls Corker a "moderate"). But no Republican gets elected in TN without adhering to the Party Line, and in the past that has meant signing on with scum like Norquist. But everything is changing fast:

“I’m not obligated on the pledge,” Corker told CBS’s Charlie Rose on Monday morning. “I made Tennesseans aware, I was just elected, the only thing I’m honoring is the oath I take when I serve, when I’m sworn in this January.”

Good to know that, Bob. It would have been more courageous never to sign it in the first place, but I'm glad the scales have fallen from your eyes, or at least that Lindsey Graham has given you permission to follow him in standing up to Norquist in order to possibly save your party.

But Grover isn't going to go down that easily. In fact, he is calling out anyone who opposes him, including Bob Corker, making veiled threats towards some type of retaliation towards anyone who defies him, accusing them of "impure thoughts" as if he has delusions of god-hood as an omniscient deity. But hey - we always knew he felt that way.

He also says over and over that none of these guys opposing him would have been elected in their states without signing his pledge. Oh really? Some of these Republicans were basically running unopposed thanks to weak candidates from the Dems - TN for instance -  and Democrats and Independents also voted for them in most states. That Pledge doesn't matter to those people who aren't very political and just see Corker as the first name on the ballot.

Grover believes he is a kingmaker - and the Great and Powerful Oz - but it was never true. He just had the ability to spin the illusion of power in the form of money. But like the Koch fortune that was supposed to win the Presidency for Mitt Romney, it is turning out to be fool's gold.

You can see his attitude in the following interview from Fox News today (my transcript)

Neil Cavuto: Fairly or not, Grover, you've been seen as this "Wizard of Oz" character who has been able to keep Republicans in lock-step with your thinking, and with more bolting, especially with prominent members bolting, it says something about what is in peril for you.
. . . I don't want to liken you to Tony Soprano, but are you saying you're going to remember these guys who are turning on you?

Grover Norquist: Okay, nobody's turning on me. I understand why Harry Reid is trying to personalize it as "Grover" but what Harry Reid doesn't want to say is that the American People don't want their taxes raised. They've elected a Republican Congress opposed to raising taxes, and I, Harry Reid, am at odds with the American people.

Neil Cavuto: They are going to raise taxes, Grover. They are - they're looking like they are. So -- is that a repudiation of you? Or recognition of the election? Or what?

Grover Norquist: Okay, first of all, the promise on the pledge is to the American People. What I have accomplished with Americans for Tax Reform is to make it easy through the pledge for elected officials, candidates and incumbents, to credibly commit that they won't raise taxes.
Corker was elected to the Senate because he took the pledge. People had thought he was too moderate, maybe he wouldn't make it, but he made that written commitment to the people of Tennessee. He would not be a Senator today if he hadn't made that commitment. If he breaks it, he's going to have to have a conversation with the people from Tennessee about his . . . keeping his word. And the same thing about other people who were elected because they made that written commitment to the people of their state.

Neil Cavuto: That sounds like a threat.

Norquist: No -- look, I vote in Washington D.C. The people that Corker promised or (Saxby) Chambliss (R-GA) promised or (Lindsey) Graham (R-SC) promised are in their state. They haven't promised me anything. They promised the voters of their state that they would go to Washington and reform government, not raise taxes to pay for Obama's bigger government. They need to focus on reforming government, not raising taxes to pay for bigger government each year. And it's a lot of work - it's not easy! But throwing up your hands and saying 'Maybe I'll raise taxes' instead of governing is not the way to go.


By tonight, Grover was getting more rattled and had a hissy fit on Piers Morgan, attacking Peter King R-NY, and comparing breaking the Tax Pledge to breaking a Marriage Vow???  Hey, Stupid - your pledge isn't legally or spiritually binding. Get over yourself!!!!!!!!!

Story via Mediaite

During a rather tense interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan this evening, conservative activist Grover Norquist blasted the various prominent Republican lawmakers who have expressed a willingness to break his long-standing anti-tax pledge in the name of achieving a compromise to avoid the “fiscal cliff.” In particular, Norquist took a shot at Rep. Peter King (R-NY), accusing the congressman of trying to “weasel” out of a career-long commitment to the pledge.

. . . Norquist fired back with a pointed stab at King: “The pledge is not for life … [but] Peter King, who tried to weasel out of it, shame on him as the New York Sun said today. I hope his wife understands that commitments last a little longer than two years or something.”

“Whoa, whoa, whoa,” Morgan shouted. “Hang on. That was a bit below the belt, Grover.”

“The commitment for the pledge, as Peter King well knows when he signed, is that as long as you’re in Congress you will rein in spending and reform government not raise taxes,” Norquist responded. “It’s only as long as you’re in the House or Senate. If he stayed too long, that’s his problem. But you don’t tell the bank, ‘Oh, the mortgage. Wasn’t that a long time ago?’”

He concluded: “If you make a commitment, you keep it.”