In the continuing effort by the establishment media to run any resistance to the climate agenda out of politics — worked great in 2008! –
The conservative debate over the Boehner plan is very similar to the one over the continuing resolution that averted a government shutdown in April. Conservatives who thought Republicans would pay the political price for any shutdown, thus setting back the cause of more meaningful spending cuts, thought avoiding that scenario while getting even token budget cuts was a victory. Conservatives who were less concerned about the fallout of a government shutdown wanted nothing less than real spending cuts. That debate is playing out once again. Conservatives who think Republicans will be hurt by August 2 passing by without an increase in the debt ceiling support the Boehner plan. Those who think Republicans can survive that deadline want something much stronger. The biggest problems facing conservative Boehner plan supporters this time is that 1.) the CBO score of the CR turned out to be so deflating last time and 2.) the CBO has already scored the Boehner plan this time around before the vote, with less than dazzling results. There remains an argument for taking whatever spending cuts can be gotten, even if they are insufficient to resolve the debt crisis, and living to fight another day. We’ll soon see if that’s the conservative mood.
Here is the original post:
The Boehner Debt Deal and the Govt. Shutdown
I think conservatives need to draw one more line in the sand on the debt ceiling. There is a growing worry that John Boehner and Eric Cantor will come up with a deal with the White House that will require Democrat votes to get through the House of Representatives. This would be a replay of the continuing resolution fiasco that cut little and cost much. If Republican leaders come up with a debt ceiling deal that requires Democrats to vote for it in order to get to 218, the Republicans who put those leaders in power should boot them out of power. It’s that simple. The Republican leaders have twice now seen their members stand for something. First they stood for Paul Ryan’s plan and got roundly attacked. Then they stood for Cut, Cap, and Balance despite withering attacks. Leadership now needs to stand up with their conservative majority and not fall back on Democrats to pass a bad deal.
See the rest here:
House Republicans Should Not Rely on Democrats For Votes on the Debt Ceiling
The Obama regime couldn’t toss longtime US-ally Hosni Mubarak under the bus quick enough and Assad gets a free pass. Something seriously wrong here. (LA Times) — After sharply escalating its criticism of Syria’s bloody crackdown on pro-democracy protesters, the Obama administration has abruptly scaled back its condemnations, showing fresh uncertainty about its willingness to confront President Bashar Assad’s regime. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton declared last week that Assad’s government had “lost legitimacy,” diplomatic language that implied a break with the government in Damascus. Analysts said they expected the White House to demand Assad’s ouster, as it did earlier this year with Libyan leader Moammar Kadafi and former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. But Clinton backed off on Saturday, saying the administration still hopes that Assad’s regime will stop the violence and work with protesters to carry out political reforms. On Monday, European Union ministers also called on Assad to implement reforms and made it clear they still hoped he would do so. The change in tone reflects the continuing debate over whether Syria’s ruler is likely to survive the current turmoil, and how best to use the limited diplomatic tools available to pressure him. For now, a State Department official said, it’s unclear whether the administration will ramp up the rhetoric and officially call for Assad’s departure. “Whether we take it farther will depend on events on the ground,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of diplomatic sensitivities. “We need to think through carefully what we say.”
See original here:
Syrian Dictator Bashar Assad Escalates Deadly Crackdown On Protesters, Hillary Clinton Responds By Softening Criticism, Refuses To Call For His…
The New York Times has an interesting profile of House Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy — the man who will someday probably gut Eric Cantor’s naked ambitions. For all the talk about a Boehner v. Cantor rivalry, reporters should keep their eyes on the Cantor v. McCarthy relationship. In any event, there is this interesting nugget about McCarthy rewarding House Republicans who toe the party line, even when it means selling out conservatives: Even McCarthy’s light touch can send a signal of reproach or reward. Last month, the entire G.O.P. House conference traveled to the White House to meet with the president. After Obama’s remarks, McCarthy, Boehner and the other leaders each asked him a question. Then one question came from a pre selected freshman. It was Reid Ribble, a former roofing contractor from Wisconsin. McCarthy had heard Ribble tell a story over dinner about a seemingly absurd regulation forbidding laborers from drinking water out of a plastic bottle while up on a roof — necessitating that they make frequent trips up and down the ladder, where accidents most often occur. The whip loved it and pushed for Ribble to have the chance to address the president. There was, however, something else for the majority whip to love about Reid Ribble: he had never crossed the G.O.P. leadership on anything important. There was not a chance that leadership would award this moment to someone like Justin Amash , the only freshman to vote against all four of the continuing resolutions; or to Allen West , who in a press release expressed “disappointment in my own leadership” over a financing bill that appeared to be using U.S. troops as a political pawn; or to Raúl Labrador , who in a closed-door conference accused Boehner of “abandoning” conservatives. They and other dissidents are, of course, perfectly free to visit on their own with the president at the White House anytime they wish — if they can. Reid Ribble — party first. By the way, for those of you who point out to me that Ribble is a House co-sponsor of the Cut, Cap, and Balance Act, you should note that Ribble has not taken the pledge or been involved in any of the substantive conversations about the legislation. Several sources point out to me that Ribble has been AWOL on everything except sponsorship, more likely than not at the behest of leadership.
See more here:
In Which We Learn Reid Ribble Isn’t One Of Us
