O Hillary

I think a generic Republican-- which is, after all, what they all are anyway-- could beat Hillary Clinton in Texas, Georgia, Kentucky and South Carolina in 2016. But those will probably be the battleground states if she runs. That's really bad news for the GOP, which would prefer that the battleground states be Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Iowa, Colorado and New Hampshire, all states Clinton will probably have in the bag going into the election. I guess if North Colorado is a state by 2016, a Republican would win there. And the chances of North Colorado being a state-- like with 2 senators-- by 2016 are roughly as good as... a Republican beating Hillary in 2016.

The Republicans spent much of 2013 trying to make a dent in her favorability ratings with incoherent ranting and raving about Benghazi. They succeeded in bringing her sky-high favorability ratings down to 58% from 64%... not enough to mean anything at all in the electoral college.

Personally, I'd rather see a progressive as the next Democratic president-- Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Alan Grayson... someone who puts ordinary working families first, instead of the Establishment shills the Democrats have been puking up since... um... was there anyone who really did since William Jennings Bryan? I guess a case can be made for FDR. But no one since. On the other hand, I suspect if we wind up with a president from Florida, it will be another Establishment hack like Marco Rubio, not a free-thinker like Grayson. So the Democrats will just have to be happy with Hillary who is-- I guess-- not as bad as any of the Republicans... what a distinction! Of course, the inspiring symbol of a woman president is probably worth watching Hillary win-- the same flawed thinking that made me vote for Obama in 2008.

Still, there are Republicans who want to run anyway. Running for president is a big deal, even if you don't have much of a chance to win, especially for youngish politicians like Rubio, Ryan, Paul and Cruz. The video up top, most of it silly right-wing spin, was put out by The Hill, which can never get enough of that silly right-wing spin.

In contrast to Clinton’s dominance among Democrats, the battle for the GOP nomination is wide-open. Those who appear to be readying a White House run are taking markedly different approaches in terms of how they treat the Democratic frontrunner.

Some potential contenders have set about proving, in ostentatious fashion, that they are willing to attack the former first lady head-on.

Last month, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) spoke in the first-to-caucus state of Iowa and lit into Clinton over last year’s attacks on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans were killed.

“First question to Hillary Clinton: Where in the hell were the Marines?” Paul said. The same morning, Paul had published an opinion article in the Washington Times in which he had asserted that Clinton “should never hold high office again.”

At a January Senate hearing, Paul had told Clinton that had he been president, “I would have relieved you of your post.”

Paul’s speech at the Iowa Republican Party’s Lincoln Dinner was prefaced by remarks from Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa). “The process of selecting the next leader of the free world begins in Iowa, and it’s already begun,” King told the audience.

Going after Clinton scores big with the GOP base and helps attract donors. But ripping her also poses risks, especially when the Republican Party is trying to court female voters.

Still, other possible GOP candidates have demonstrated their willingness to lock horns with Clinton. During an appearance on Fox News last month, Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) alleged there were political motivations at play in the explanations initially given by the Obama administration for the Benghazi attack.

“What I think is sad is how many people were around the administration-- including the former secretary of State, Secretary Clinton-- [who] knew this to be the case and allowed this to move forward anyway,” he added.

Not everyone has adopted such a confrontational stance. In January, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) suggested on Meet the Press that a Clinton administration would have done more to address the United States’ fiscal problems than Obama has done.

... Former Rick Santorum spokesman Hogan Gidley added, “Hillary Clinton is a force to be reckoned with. Any Republican who says she’s going to be dead in the water because of Benghazi, or because of Bill Clinton, or because of whatever: They are sorely mistaken.”

...Republican strategist Ed Rollins: “Whether she is a viable candidate in the general depends an awful lot on what happens to Obama. One thing’s certain, though: If she runs, she will raise the money and she will get the staff.”

Read More

Will Rubio's Centrist Position On Immigration Reform Disqualify Him From The Presidential Nomination Of The Party Of Hatred And Bigotry?

Californians for Population Stabilization insists they're not a hate group and not about racism but they're fooling no one in California. Now they're taking their bigotry on the road-- running TV spots against McCain and Flake in Arizona and against Marco Rubio in Florida. Rubio isn't up for reelection next year. If the above and the ad below are meant to harm him, I suspect it's his presidential ambitions they have in mind. Marc Caputo at the Miami Herald covered the animus right-wing hate groups are developing towards Rubio for his role in the comprehensive immigration reform process. And they're not just running the ads on cable. They, at the minimum, targeted Brevard County, a GOP bastion where Romney beat Obama 159,270 (56%) to 122,972 (43%). In his 3-way race in 2010, Rubio cleaned up in Brevard:

• Rubio- 107,930 (54%)
• Crist- 56,202 (28%)
• Meek- 32,069 (16%)

The spot that's running now, seen on NBC, savages the immigration bill for flooding Florida with workers at a time when joblessness still plagues the land. It's a potent message in the Space Coast for two reasons: It's a very conservative place and unemployment is among the highest in the state.

While the Florida media buys likely aren't big, it's another sign that Rubio-- a 2016 White House hopeful and GOP frontrunner-- faces some conservative blowback in his own backyard for backing immigration reform. And his support for hard-core conservative positions (from voting against an iteration of the Violence Against Women Act to opposing Gulf oil-spill money because it was laden with pork) don't seem to matter as much as adopting a center-right position on immigration reform.

In a statement, Rubio's office disagrees that there's been much blowback because "he was very well received at all the recent GOP dinners he spoke at back in the state, and we continue to get good feedback from our conservative grassroots. There's been a handful of anti-immigration protests, but as your paper has noted, they've been poorly attended.

"I have no objection to you saying that we're getting some backlash from anti-immigration forces, but I'd disagree with characterizing those groups as 'conservative,' since conservatives traditionally support legal immigration, and many of these groups (including the California group running the new ad) do not."

The House Republicans considering their own immigration bill-- one that is unlikely to be acceptable to the Senate, the President, immigrants or the general public beyond the KKK and Tea Party fringe groups-- are meeting with Rubio and two other Senate teabaggers, Mike Lee (a hard core racist) and Rand Paul (who hasn't taken a stand on immigration reform yet) on Wednesday. The House Republicans leading the circus are all anti-immigrant fanatics beloved of the Tea Party: Steve Scalise (R-LA), Bob Goodlatte (R-VA), Trey Gowdy (R-SC) and Raul Labrador (R-ID).

Unlike the fights over gun control and the budget that have united the caucus in the 113th Congress, there is no conservative consensus on how to approach immigration reform. For months, many RSC members have refused to stake out a position, insisting that they would wait to see legislative text and hear arguments from all sides before making up their minds.

The three confirmed Senate attendees, all of whom rode tea-party support to 2010 victories, represent diverse viewpoints on the issue of immigration reform. Rubio, the most high-profile member of the Senate "Gang of Eight," has been attempting to assuage conservative fears about providing citizenship to millions of illegal immigrants without first installing border-security triggers. (Rubio has acknowledged the Senate bill must be improved to secure Republican support in the Senate, as well as in the House.) Paul is seen as a critical swing vote on the Gang of Eight bill, having spoken favorably about the idea of eventually legalizing those who are living in the U.S. illegally-- as long as they aren't given preferential status over those who have been waiting in line. Lee, who was once involved in the Gang of Eight talks, eventually defected and later voted against the group's proposal, citing his opposition to a pathway to citizenship and special treatment for agricultural workers.

Many pro-immigration activists have been wary of Rubio, who always seems to be trying to water the bill down, all along. Now he's running around attacking his own bill. He now claims it won't pass the House without changes-- and none of them good changes. Frank Sharry, head of the immigration advocacy group America's Voice, is concerned. "If he thinks now that he's the face of immigration reform, that he's going to drive this bill in a direction that makes it less palatable for the progressive coalition that created the political space for reform, it's going to be a huge problem."

Read More

Mainstream Republican Conservatives Battle Tea Party Nihilists In The U.S. Senate

Miss McConnell lays down with the GOP's 3 nihilist psychopaths

A few days ago, television personality Bill Maher was musing about the idea of Texas teabagger Ted Cruz running for president. Maher is certain that it's inevitable, pointing out that Cruz has "Newt Gingrich's ambition and ego mixed with the steely-eyed focus of a serial killer." Good description! And he added that Cruz has been "totally unwilling to compromise with liberals on anything, including eating with a knife and fork." NY Times political reporter Jonathan Weisman, might agree, but he takes Cruz more seriously and honed in on how he and a few other Tea Party Senate freshmen are gumming up the works in that body and forcing people concerned with the smooth function of government to confront deranged right-wing ideological nihilism that veers frighteningly close to outright fascism. And this is all inside the Senate GOP caucus!

In full view of C-Span cameras trained on the floor this week, Senators John McCain of Arizona and Susan Collins of Maine jousted with a new generation of conservatives-- Marco Rubio of Florida, Ted Cruz of Texas, Mike Lee of Utah and Rand Paul of Kentucky-- over the party’s refusal to allow the Senate to open budget talks with the House despite Senate Republicans’ long call for Democrats to produce a budget.

It was the Old Guard versus the Tea Party, but with real ramifications, as Congress careens toward another debt limit and spending crisis this fall with seemingly no one at the steering wheel. The newer members say negotiations should go forward only with a binding precondition that a budget deal cannot raise the government’s statutory borrowing limit.

“I have tremendous respect for this institution,” Mr. Rubio said in an interview on Friday. “But I’m not all that interested in the way things have always been done around here.”

Republicans made the failure of Senate Democrats to pass a budget a central talking point in the 2012 campaign, going so far this year as to pass legislation withholding Congressional pay if budgets were not approved this spring. Now, some Republicans say the fact that members of their own party are standing in the way of a House-Senate conference committee undermines their fiscal message.

“This to me is an issue of integrity,” said Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee. “We’ve pressed for a budget. We ought to go to conference.”

But the budget hawks have not budged, and they have even taken aim at their party in strikingly critical language.

“Here is the dirty little secret about some of those on the right side of the aisle,” Mr. Cruz said of his fellow Republicans. “There are some who would very much like to cast a symbolic vote against raising the debt ceiling and nonetheless allow our friends on the left side of the aisle to raise the debt ceiling. That, to some Republicans, is the ideal outcome.”

Mr. McCain called the demands of his Republican colleagues “absolutely out of line and unprecedented.” The Senate passed the budget before dawn on March 23 after a grueling all-night session, he noted, saying it was time to try to reach a final deal with the House in a negotiating conference.

“Will this deliberative body, whether it is the greatest in the world or the worst in the world, go ahead and decide on this issue, so we can at least tell the American people we are going to do what we haven’t done for four years and what every family in America sooner or later has to do-- and that is to have a budget?” he asked. Although few of Mr. McCain’s colleagues took to the floor to join him, many have expressed similar views.

Senator Roy Blunt of Missouri, a member of the Republican leadership, said that at this point, resistance had to give.

“I suspect senators have held back long enough on the decision to go to conference,” he said.

...House Republicans had envisioned a plan to reach a comprehensive deficit reduction deal predicated on a showdown in July over the debt ceiling. That showdown was supposed to drive both sides back to the bargaining table, but a rapidly falling deficit, rising tax payments and huge infusions of cash from the newly profitable, federally controlled home financing agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have scrambled those plans. Now, the debt ceiling may not have to be raised until October or November, in the next fiscal year.

Before then, unless a budget deal can be struck, Congress must pass bills to finance the government based on very different guidelines in the House- and Senate-passed plans. The House Appropriations Committee will have to draft a bill financing labor, health and education programs at $121.8 billion, a 19 percent cut from current levels even after the across-the-board cuts took effect. The bill to finance the Interior Department and Environmental Protection Agency cannot exceed $24.2 billion, down 15 percent from the current levels after the cuts.

“There is not a member of our committee, Republican or Democrat, who is happy with these numbers,” said Jennifer Hing, a spokeswoman for the committee.

The Senate has no intention of swallowing those cuts, so unless budget negotiators can meet and reach a deal, Congress will be headed back toward a crisis come Sept. 30, said Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the Senate Budget Committee chairwoman.

“They could create crisis by having a government shutdown or holding everything back until November and threatening a debt default. That would be to their political detriment,” Ms. Murray said. “I think the American people have had it with that kind of hostage-taking.”

Cruz may be the ringleader of mindless nihilism but his rivals for the worthless 2016 presidential nomination, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio can't cede the far right fringe of the party-- which completely controls the nominating stage in most states-- to get out ahead of them on the crackpot ideas the Hate Talk Radio-brainedwashed base loves so much. Rubio, in fact, claims he could be the last man standing on preventing a majority in the Senate to move forward. “I’m not sure this is an issue I can ever change my opinion on,” he said. Already grievously damaged in the eyes of the extremist for his collaboration with Democrats on comprehensive immigration reform-- which is vehemently opposed by the Canadian-borm Cuban from Texas, Cruz and which the Hate Talkers only refer to as "amnesty"-- Rubio is looking for an opportunity to be seen taking a kamakazi-like stand on behalf of... Alex Jones and Glenn Beck fans. He'll find Ted Cruz and Rand Paul already have those folks sewn up. Their grandstanding is pushing Harry Reid towards a Senate rule change that would allow for a majority vote-- something so detested by the demented Cruz-- which would deflate the Senate Republicans' ability to obstruct government to further their ideological and narrow partisan agenda.

Read More

2016 Cycle Has Begun

Republicans are counting on incredibly bad leadership at the DCCC and the DSCC to work magic for the GOP in 2014. Steve Israel has shown himself either uninterested or incapable of winning and Michael Bennet seems determined to take Patty Murray's incredible work that led to a breathtaking string of unlikely victories in 2012 and turning them into a smoldering ruin in 2014. Despite record contempt for Congress by American voters and a recognition that Republican economic sabotage is undermining everyone's financial well-being, the Republicans are likely to win back the Senate and retain the House. As veteran Democratic Party strategist Doug Sosnik explained in this week's DC big buzz memo, the Democratic Party is one hot mess. The Republicans know their big problem will come in 2016, not 2014. With only four vaguely, semi-vulnerable red Senate seats to worry about (Kentucky, Georgia, Maine and South Carolina, none of which have top tier Democratic recruits yet) and a half dozen solid opportunities in traditionally red areas with weak or no Democratic incumbents (Arkansas, Louisiana, South Dakota, Alaska, North Carolina, and West Virginia), the Republicans aren't panicked about the Senate. Steve Israel is such an inept strategist-- handing out free reelection passes to senior Republicans like they were candy and showing more concern for winning nominations for fellow conservative Blue Dogs and New Dems than for actually electing real Democrats-- that the GOP knows the House is safely in their hands for as long as the DCCC stays in Steve Israel's hands.

So their energy is free to wander down the road to 2016. Then the Senate table is set nicely for the Democrats, where they have better than even shots of picking up seats in Arizona, Florida, Illinois, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and legitimate worries only in Nevada and Colorado. Pelosi is likely to retire by then and no one in their right mind will reappoint Israel to head the DCCC. Literally anyone would be an improvement. And then, of course, the ace in the hole: Hillary Clinton. Polls show her capable of winning even the most hard-core Republican states, like Texas, Arkansas, West Virginia, Kentucky and Georgia. As Greg Sargent asserted yesterday: the right is in full attack mode against Clinton already.

You saw the deranged GOP Benghazi nonsense jumping from Fox to infect the rest of the media this week as virtually every Republican immerses himself in full-time conspiracy theory insanity. Look at that ad up top that Karl Rove's shady PAC is already running! They are petrified that a Hillary sweep will not just mean a victory for her but that she'll help Democrats win back Congress. They are panic-stricken. As Sargent reminds us, in the '90s "you could go on the TV-- night after night-- and accuse the Clintons of literally anything and no one blinked. There were multiple investigations into whether Hillary Clinton had somebody killed.” And they plan to do that again-- right into 2016... for the next three years! The NY Times editorial board explained the right-wing Benghazi Obsession. The Republicans don't care. They just want it in the news so that lo-info voters in those red states where she's ahead start thinking that where there's smoke, there could be fire.

Before Wednesday’s hearing on the attack in Benghazi, Libya, Republicans in Congress promised explosive new details about the administration’s mishandling of the episode. Instead, the hearing showed, yet again, that sober fact-finding is not their mission. Common sense and good judgment have long given way to conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

...The hearing did not prove anything like an administration cover-up or other hysterical allegations of crimes equal to Watergate that some Republicans, such as Representative Steve King and Senator Lindsey Graham, have alleged. Republicans have held numerous hearings and briefings on Benghazi and are threatening to hold even more. It is a level of interest they did not show during George W. Bush’s administration when there were 64 attacks on American diplomatic targets or in the years they spent cutting back diplomatic security budgets.

The real scandal is that serious follow-up on security in Libya is going unaddressed. Congress needs to make sure that State Department budgets for personnel and security improvements are sufficient and that security reforms are put in place as soon as possible.

Well... the real scandal is that the Republican Party is wasting government resources and avoiding addressing real issues so they can grandstand on their electoral priorities for 2016. Or, if you want a real scandal... there's always this one in Massachusetts, where Republican Senate candidate Gabriel Gomez scammed the government out of hundreds of thousands of dollars and refuses to discuss it. Watch-- because this is a real scandal:

Read More

Marco Rubio, El Presidente? Not Anytime Soon... Not In The U.S.A.

I suspect Marco Rubio is starting to realize he has a tiger by the tail-- and I doubt he has the depth of character to hold on much longer. The far right has really turned against him. Neo-fascist religionist kook Bryan Fischer starts nearly all his days tweeting endless incantations against the hapless Rubio and his attempt to work on a comprehensive immigration reform program.

Over the weekend I noticed that an anti-immigrant right-wing "Democrat," Mickey Kaus-- yeah, yeah, I know... not an actual Democrat-- one of those creatures who makes a living on the right by playing a Democrat while spouting a reactionary or bigoted agenda, picked up on Fischer's anti-Rubio crusade at the Daily Caller.

Rubio: Illegals will pay fines or be deported! Ambassador of Amnesty Marco Rubio argues on Powerline-- or rather, “Marco Rubio” argues, since the words are  attributed only to his “office”-- that critics overstate the number of new immigrants who would be added by his legalization bill:

There are approximately 11 million illegals currently in the US, and many of them won’t be eligible for legalization (because they haven’t been here long enough, don’t pass background checks, can’t afford the fines, etc.) and will have to be deported.

Really? We’re going to deport a significant chunk of the 11 million–and not just because they’ve arrived since 2011 (the cutoff), but because they don’t scratch together enough money (initially, $1,000)  for fines?  Would Sen. Schumer and Cecilia Munoz go along with this characterization of the legislation? Answer: no. It’s not going to happen. Rubio-- and his “office”-- are cementing his new national reputation as a dissembler...

P.S.: Even if Rubio really intended to deport “many’ of the 11M, that wouldn’t work. Why? Because the individuals who know they would be deported-- e.g. they came here too recently, they have criminal records or they don’t want to pay the fine-- will simply not come forward. They-- the “many”-- will just stay in the shadows where they are now. That means the bill will not come close to achieving its alleged purpose, which is to bring all current illegals out into the open.

P.P.S.: And how are these mass deportations going to help Republicans woo Latino voters?

What’s the alternative? Don’t pretend you’re suddenly going to deport millions of people. Move to stop the flow of new illegals. When that’s accomplished-- e.g. through E-verify, a fence, and a visa-checking system-- and when those enforcement mechanisms have survived court challenges, then try to bring illegals out of the shadows. At that point, some years down the road, with the future illegal flow cut off (and “chain migration” curtailed), you can afford to be honest about how mean you are willing to be. Some people will still have to be deported, but not for failing to pay a fine or for losing their job and slipping below 125% of the poverty line (as allegedly would happen under Rubio’s plan).

There's a lot of dirt on Rubio from the days he and ex-Congressman David Rivera were roommates in a Tallahassee party house, where mobsters, cocaine, women and millions of illegal dollars made it the center of Florida's corrupt go-go scene while Rubio was the House Speaker and Rivera was his henchman. With Know Nothings and the neo-fascist wing of the GOP destroying Rubio with the activist Republican base now, Democrats will be able to hold onto that material for elections beyond 2016. And I say, if they want Cruz... give them Cruz!

Read More

Does Your Heart Break For The Congressional Republican Leadership?

Yesterday there was a flurry of speculation that Texas' radical right extremist Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada and is ineligible to serve, would run for president in 2016. Intensely disliked and mistrusted in his own caucus, there are probably plenty of Republicans-- cognizant that no one is going to beat Hillary Clinton anyway-- who would be happy to see Cruz run, lose and be gone from the Senate. But 2016 isn't going to be a good year for Senate Republicans anyway. They have a lot of vulnerable seats to defend. A Ted Cruz candidacy would positively kill them.

Oh, Dick Shelby (R-AL), Mike Lee (R-UT), Jerry Moran (R-KS), John Thune (R-SD), Mike Crapo (R-ID), Johnny Isakson (R-GA), John Boozman (R-AR) and whichever crackpots they run in Oklahoma and South Carolina are probably safe. But there is likely to be an open Republican seat in Arizona (McCain) and Cruz on the top of the ticket is likely to shave between 5 and 10 points off these incumbents:

• Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
• Chuck Grassley (R-IA)
• Marco Rubio (R-FL)
• Ron Johnson (R-WI)
• Rob Portman (R-OH)
• Pat Toomey (R-PA)
• Richard Burr (R-NC)
• Mark Kirk (R-IL)

Cruz on top of the ticket could also jeopardize reelection prospects for Rand Paul (R-KY), David Vitter (R-LA), Roy Blunt (R-MO), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), and Dan Coats (R-IN). So... yeah, go, Ted, go! It could be historic.

Meanwhile, the House Republicans-- who would also suffer, though less so because of gerrymandered districts-- are undergoing a painful civil war between conservatives and neo-fascists. Jake Sherman at Politico would rather just describe it as chaos. The zombies are restless.

The GOP leadership is dealing with an unprecedented level of frustration in running the House, according to conversations with more than a dozen aides and lawmakers in and around leadership. Leadership is talking past each other. The conference is split by warring factions. And influential outside groups are fighting them.

The chaos has led to a sense of stalemate for House Republicans, who have been in the majority since 2011.

“There’s so much stuff happening up here that sometimes, you don’t pay attention to some of the more intricate details of something until it comes right to you,” said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland, a GOP whip from Georgia.

Speaker John Boehner, Cantor and McCarthy are plagued by a conference split into two groups. In one camp are stiff ideologues who didn’t extract any lesson from Mitt Romney’s loss and are only looking to slash spending and defund President Barack Obama’s health care law at every turn. In the other are lawmakers who are aligned with Cantor, who is almost singularly driving an agenda which is zeroed in on family issues.

Boehner seems more focused on passing big pieces of legislation like hiking the debt ceiling and extending government funding, sometimes drawing flak for having to rely on Democrats to move these bills over the finish line.

The House simply isn’t interested in the agendas being pushed by the president and Democratic Senate. Most Republicans aren’t looking for a big legislative push on gun control. GOP leaders are skeptical that they can arrive at a framework to negotiate a budget agreement with Senate Democrats. And tax reform and an immigration overhaul, while broadly supported, are still seen as long shots.

Members of leadership have trouble staying on the same page. Cantor is anxious to move on his agenda, but McCarthy needs to gather support in a House Republican Conference that’s filled with lawmakers constantly divided on leadership’s priorities.

...House Republicans have had worse days-- they had to abandon a tax plan pushed by Boehner in December, which was followed by a gaggle of rank-and-file members trying to prevent Boehner from serving a second term as speaker.

But the continued internal struggles illustrate a miniature picture of chaos. Despite all of House Republicans’ efforts to plot, plan and strategize to shift a divided Washington in their favor, hurdles have been difficult to avoid.

...With all the moving pieces, flubs on the floor and leadership intrigue, Chocola says he wonders why there are no challenges to the current leadership structure.

“I just think that the more kind of interesting thing to me is that even though there’s been some hiccups, there’s been violations of the Hastert rule, pulling things like [Boehner’s tax plan], to this, there’s like no opposition,” he said. “There’s no one that you hear about that will challenge current leadership. It’s assumed everyone will go up a step with Cantor and McCarthy. I’m not instigating it-- you never hear of any rumblings to the leadership.”

Steve Benen makes the case that it's even worse than that-- broken and beyond repair. "It's ugly," he wrote, "and it's getting worse... Clearly House Republicans are divided against themselves. There's no meaningful leadership; no interest in cooperation or compromise; and post-policy nihilism rules the day. The demise of Cantor's health care bill was a reminder that House Republicans will reject their own party's policy ideas with nearly the same speed as they'll reject Democratic ideas. For Beltway pundits, the inability of House Republicans to act like a governing caucus is partially President Obama's fault -- if only he'd schmooze with them, form personal relationships, and act like a character in an Aaron Sorkin movie, maybe these radicalized nihilists would be more likely to get something done. But all available evidence suggests the collapse of the House GOP is out of Obama's hands. The House Republican conference is simply broken."

Read More