Archive for the party of no

Letter: "I am a Republican. This year I voted Democrat. Why? It was their attitude."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Today's L.A. Times letters to the editor, because our voices matter:

Re “Obama again: Swing states seal second term,” Nov. 7

I worked as a poll worker in Santa Fe Springs for 15 hours on election day.

I was elated to see the young and middle-aged men and women, senior citizens and the physically challenged with their wheelchairs, walkers and canes — all taking the time to come to the precinct and vote.

I translated in Spanish for about 30 people, some first-time voters. Some were immigrants who had recently become U.S. citizens. One woman from Ecuador had tears in her eyes and thanked me for assisting her in voting.

Near the end, an older gentleman arrived with two young men. He told me: “They have to stop playing their games or watching TV. They need to come to vote. They are the ones who will inherit this country.”

Juanita Meraz
Santa Fe Springs

***

I am a Republican and have been for the last 30 years. However, I am an American first. This year I voted Democrat. Why?

Because the Republicans became the “Republi-cants” and “the party of no.”

I expect the Republicans to work with the Democrats. Not doing so is anti-American, and I am an American first. So if they want to know why they lost — it was their attitude.

Elliott Brender
Villa Park

***

It was with a deep sense of shame that I watched fellow Americans have to wait two to three hours to cast their votes. I waited five minutes to vote. This is a problem easily fixed by adding polling stations.

Doubly shameful is the use of the electoral system — antiquated and unfair to voters of all parties, a system that makes the votes of those in “swing states” more valuable than the rest of the country.

I suspect that these issues will not be dealt with until the day before the next election.

Robert Shapiro
Long Beach

***

Though I'm not ready to accuse the mainstream media of contriving a too-close-to-call presidential contest in order to bolster audience attention, I will affirm that my faith in American democracy has been fortified by the reelection of President Obama.

After all, how could anyone who has been awake the last four years not be aware of our president's hard-earned accomplishments?

As the campaign slogan said: Osama bin Laden is dead; General Motors is alive. One doesn't have to be a fastidious fact-checker to acknowledge that truth.

Indeed, with 303 electoral votes compared with Mitt Romney's 206, this contest wasn't even a particularly close one. Thank goodness.

Now the president can get back to the business of governing our nation without the distraction of a seemingly endless, often inane campaign.

Ben Miles
Huntington Beach

***

Cheerleading for the failure of an American president and just saying no in Congress are not winning political strategies.

The silent majority spoke, and Republican/“tea party” extremism was rejected soundly. This is not a center-right country.

Alan Segal
San Diego

***

Some claim Romney lost because of the 47% remarks and Superstorm Sandy. During his concession speech, I could see the real reason he lost — there was no diversity among his supporters.

More than the dismal economic and social policies he wanted to implement, failing to recognize that the time of white control of government and politics is over alienated the new majority.

If the GOP continues to be led by the nose by the tea party, it will be as irrelevant nationally as it is in California. That's just fine with me.

Raul Valdez
Alhambra

***

If there were ever a case to be made for campaign finance reform, the amount of money spent on this election is it.

How many homeless shelters could have been provided? How many Head Start programs could have been funded? How many unsafe bridges could have been repaired or replaced? How many college scholarships could have been funded?

What a waste of money on all that campaign literature that went straight from my mail box directly into the recycle bin, unread.

The time for meaningful campaign finance reform is now. And it should come from a citizens committee because the politicians have no objectivity or interest in making meaningful changes.

Ed Hieshetter
San Diego

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Cartoons of the Day- The GOP Sincerely Wants To Help

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Via.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

U.S. stock futures down following no deal on debt ceiling

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Could be worse, right? Via Bloomberg:

U.S. stock futures fell, indicating the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index will slump after rallying within 1.4 percent of a three-year high, as failure to raise the federal debt limit intensified concern of a default.

S&P 500 futures expiring in September declined 0.9 percent to 1,329.20 at 7:31 a.m. in Tokyo. Dow Jones Industrial Average futures lost 116 points, or 0.9 percent, to 12,505. The U.S. dollar fell against the euro, yen and Swiss franc.

Hey Boehner, about your concerns over reassuring the markets... Oh, and where are the jobs?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Head of Democratic Caucus: No revenues in deficit deal, no Dem votes

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

The BushCo tax cuts should expire and go away. Shoo! At the very least, the tax bonuses for the wealthy should, because, see GOPers-- and read my lips here-- all deficit plans being considered pale in comparison to simply letting Bush tax cuts expire in '12, which saves $5.4T over 10 years.

That little factoid was from Think Progress.

But since the GOP is hell bent on making President Obama a one-termer, facts don't matter. Then again, when it comes to the Party of No, did they ever?

Via Roll Call:

Rep. John Larson (D-Conn.) suggested House Republicans would get no Democratic help if the final package includes only spending cuts and the promise of new revenues later. [...]

Larson on Friday renewed the call from Democratic leaders that cuts in entitlement benefits have no place in the current debt-ceiling debate. He did leave the door open, however, for ... a hike in the eligibility age for Medicare and Social Security – as part of a later discussion on deficit reduction. 

"People are living longerand people are leading healthier lifestyles," he said. "This is something that's got to be certainly on the table in terms of discussion" in the future.

That's not really a positive, John. The living longer part is, but longer and healthier? That's another story. There are plenty of people who lead healthy lifestyles, but they are not necessarily immune to, say, diabetes or cancer. Nor does it prevent them from a bout with debilitating arthritis or other nagging ailments that interfere with being able to hold a full-time job. Speaking of which, who says older people would even get hired or be able to hang on to their jobs?

Larson is pushing for a clean debt-ceiling bill, which House Republicans don't want. He fully recognizes that GOP leaders are holding the debt-ceiling deal "hostage" with the ransom being more cuts. And more. And more.

"How does cutting more … help put people back to work? I don't think it does," Larson said.

I don't think so either. You know why? Because they don't. By the way, Speaker of the House Boehner, when do you plan on introducing a jobs bill anyway? You managed to assault women's reproductive rights immediately, but jobs? Not so much.

Larson also got frustrated with only House leaders being involved in the debt negotiations, while other members are unaware of pertinent details that could help them, and us, understand what the heck is going on:

"[It's] all confusing to the people on the outside, but I dare say, equally confusing to members here."

President Obama has talked about extending the payroll tax holiday for another year. House Dems are split on that one, because they're concerned, and rightly so, that Social Security benefits would suffer as a result.

"From a policy standpoint, and for the preservation of Social Security, this raises concerns [about] whether or not the money's going to be there.

Happy days are here again.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

John Boehner: Work has begun on new debt deal to cut $3-4 trillion "to reassure markets"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Just got this news alert from the New York Times, to which I do not subscribe so this is all you get:

Hoping to reassure markets in the wake of an angry breakdown in the federal budget negotiations, Congressional leaders raced Saturday to reach a new deficit-reduction agreement that Speaker John A. Boehner told colleagues could cut $3 trillion to $4 trillion in spending over 10 years.

“We are working, and I’m confident there will be resolution,” Mr. Boehner told fellow House Republicans on an afternoon conference call, according to participants. “There has to be.

Mr. Boehner’s comments came a little more than a week before the federal government risks defaulting on its debts, a fate that could be avoided if Congress agrees to increase the $14.3 trillion debt ceiling.

Read More:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/us/politics/24debt.html?emc=na

The anarchists are putting on their negotiator faces now, are they? The Asian markets will be so relieved.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Andrew Sullivan: Republicans "are anarchists."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

After witnessing the most recent televised confrontation between President Adult and The Party of Self-Advancement (video of President Obama's full press conference here), it once again occurred to me that the infantile GOP either flat out doesn't care about this country, or is oblivious to the fact that their coveted massive budget cuts will result in actual deaths of their fellow Americans.

Yes deaths. Their "austerity" is tantamount to choking off the sick, poor, and elderly's lifelines.

Pfft, what do they care?

I'll tell you what they do care about: their Wall Street pals. Ezra Klein pointed that out on Twitter earlier, and this tweet shows how dead-on right he was:

Boehner refuses to return the president's phone calls, but jumps when his corporate masters snap their finger$.

Andrew Sullivan had a few observations of his own:

They are not a political party in government; they are a radical faction that refuses to participate meaningfully in the give and take the Founders firmly believed should be at the center of American government. They are not conservatives in this sense. They are anarchists.

Their fiscal anarchism has now led to their threat to destabilize and possibly upend the American and global economy because they refuse to compromise an inch. They control only one part of the government, and yet they hold all of it hostage.  [...]

Boehner and McConnell have one goal and it is has nothing to do with the economy. It is destroying this president and this presidency. They are clearly calculating that the economic devastation their vandalism could create will so hurt the economy that it could bring them back to power through the wreckage. [...]

And so the very republic is being plunged into crisis and possible depression by a single, implacable, fanatical faction. Until they are defeated, the country remains in more peril than we know.

Anarchists. Or as my friend and radio host Nicole Sandler and others have called them, terrorists.

Again, the above excerpts were from Andrew Sullivan, self-described "political conservative".

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Congressional leaders: After meeting, still no debt ceiling deal

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Surprise! Via Roll Call:

Congressional leaders returned to the Capitol Saturday after a brief meeting at the White House with few details and little hope of a "grand bargain" or even a short-term deal to raise the debt limit.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said leaders are still trying to find a path forward.

Asked if she could support a short-term deal, the California Democrat said, "Absolutely, positively not."

Nancy Pelosi wouldn't comment on whether or not President Obama's grand bargain was something she would have supported.

I wonder how many times The Boehner and Mitch McTurtle said "No!" and/or "More corporate tax cuts!" in that meeting.

UPDATE, more from The Hill:

After a tense 50-minute meeting with congressional leaders at the White House on Saturday, President Obama blasted lawmakers for "reckless political games" and reasserted his refusal to sign a temporary measure to raise the debt ceiling.

In a statement from White House press secretary Jay Carney, the White House said that Obama refused again to sign a shot-term deal, saying it "would be irresponsible to put our country at risk again in just a few short months with another battle over raising the debt ceiling."

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare