The Alabama Senate Race Just Got a Lot More Interesting...

[Guinevere]

And the RNC is back in Alabama, spending money to support Roy Moore, even in the face of new evidence of his inappropriate relationships with young women: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... story.html

I guess principles have an expiration date.

Back to that snowballs chance the Dems pull this one out.

[Econoline]

Kudos to Jeff Flake!

[Econoline]

Good analysis of the GOP's dilemma:

• Republicans need Roy Moore to pass their tax bill
  Updated by Matthew Yglesias | @mattyglesiasmatt@vox.com | Dec 5, 2017, 4:00pm EST
  
  With President Trump offering Roy Moore his formal endorsement, the RNC flip-flopping and resuming financial support of his campaign, and Mitch McConnell endorsing Moore as well, it's worth dwelling on the fact that the policy stakes of the Alabama special election are high.
  
  Back before Moore was accused of enjoying sexual predation of teen girls, he was already a controversial figure due to his habit of defying valid court orders, his view that Muslims should be barred from serving in Congress, his view that homosexuality is a "criminal lifestyle," etc. The GOP establishment wanted to nominate someone else for the seat, but when Moore won, they embraced him despite his disregard for the rule of law and the Constitution because — in the immoral words of Rob Portman — "he's going to be for tax reform, I think."
  
  That same calculus applies today.
  
  The House has passed a version of tax reform, and so has the Senate, but while they're broadly similar in spirit, they are different enough that reconciling them is not trivial. And the Senate bill was so hastily drafted that it contains important provisions — most significantly around the corporate alternative minimum tax — that GOP leaders seem to genuinely want to scrap. So they really will have to write another bill and pass it again, and while the odds are very good that they'll succeed, those odds drop a lot if Democrat Doug Jones rather than Moore replaces Luther Strange in the Senate.
  
  With Strange holding the seat, there are 52 GOP senators (plus Vice President Mike Pence), so they can handle the defection of two senators and still pass a bill. If it's Jones instead, they can only handle one defection. And we already know that Bob Corker has decided he objects to the scale of the borrowing involved.
  
  Operating with zero margin for error on such a large and complex bill is dangerous, because it means any single senator can credibly threaten to derail the whole thing unless he gets his pet provisions.
  
  The Wall Street Journal's Kate Davidson and Joshua Jamerson have a great rundown of pet provisions that mysteriously snuck into the Senate bill at the last minute, including:
  

  • ● A favor for mortgage servicers from Mike Rounds
    
    ● A favor for car dealerships from Rand Paul
    
    ● A favor for the cruise ship industry from Dan Sullivan
    
    ●A favor for the oil and gas industry from John Cornyn

  
  If Jones wins the seat, many more legislators will be encouraged to push for similar favors. After all this talk of Republicans reversing the war on coal, for example, surely someone will wonder why coal shouldn't get the same special treatment as oil and gas.
  
  This "Christmas tree" style of legislation, however, poses two problems. One is that scrapping the corporate AMT provision requires the bill to go in the exact opposite direction — they need to inject more spirit of true tax reform with fewer special favors and carve-outs so they don't need that AMT revenue.
  
  The other is that to sell the bill in the House, where party leaders are asking members from rich districts to vote for SALT and mortgage deduction curbs that are bad for their constituents, they really do need to be talking up the team spirit of tax reform. Otherwise, if Dan Sullivan can protect cruise ship operators, why can't New Jersey Republicans protect heavy SALT users?
  
  It's telling that Kevin McCarthy, the leader of the California House GOP delegation, immediately demanded the corporate AMT provision be repealed. He's asking his home-state colleagues to swallow a lot for the sake of tax reform. If you turn it into a Christmas tree, that doesn't make sense.
  
  But if Moore loses, it's hard to stop it from turning into a Christmas tree. So at the end of the day, if Republicans are really committed to enacting a large, unpopular corporate tax cut — and they sure seem to be! — then they really need Moore to win the election next week, whether he's a bigot or a sex criminal or whatever else.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... e-tax-bill

[BoSoxGal]

Kudos to Jeff Flake!

No pic?

[Econoline]

It shows up for me.

Here's the same image in a different size (smaller), from a different source:

[BoSoxGal]

Oh, bravo indeed!

[Guinevere]

Kudos to Jeff Flake!

Jeff Flake is a self-serving hypocrite. If he truly believed in country over party he would not have voted for the horrific tax bill. Please stop normalizing his ridiculous behavior.


(And it’s no mitzvah to send a check and then publish a picture of said check. It’s just a performance.)

[RayThom]

... Jeff Flake is a self-serving hypocrite. If he truly believed in country over party he would not have voted for the horrific tax bill. Please stop normalizing his ridiculous behavior... (And it’s no mitzvah to send a check and then publish a picture of said check)

Guin, I agree. I see Flake as a political opportunist, who is setting himself up for a run at the presidency in 2020. His seeming altruism is merely smoke and mirrors designed to make him appear as a man of the people. In the end, he'll prove to be exactly what he is -- a self-serving Repug. I ain't buying it.

The $100 check is chump change for Flake but worth 1,000 times more in publicity. Secretly, I bet he's rooting for pedophile/pervert Moore.

[Lord Jim]

Jeff Flake is a self-serving hypocrite. If he truly believed in country over party he would not have voted for the horrific tax bill.

Overall, I'm not a big fan of this tax bill but it seems to me that it's entirely possible for someone to oppose a pedophile being elected to the US Senate, and support the bill, without being a "hypocrite"...

I really don't see how the one has anything at all to do with the other...

[Guinevere]

Because, Flake made a big freaking deal about standing up and saying he didn’t support Trump or his policies (at the time he was trying to sell his book). But if you look at Flake’s actual voting record he has voted for Trump policies and programs and appointees pretty close to 100% of the time.

So claiming he is for “Country over Party” (which he himself has defined as standing up to Trump) is laughable. He is for himself — which is why he made that notation on the check and then published the picture.

ETA:

As the LATimes says today — you broke it you bought it

[Big RR]

True, but Trump policies without Trump are still preferable to them with trump. there are many jerks in Washington, but IMHO Trump is the biggest 9and most immediately dangerous) one. Even self serving dissent has some value.

[Guinevere]

Dissent without action is meaningless. Isn't that what all we pussy-hatters were told in January?

[Big RR]

Clearly action is preferable, and dissent for the sake of dissent is not particularly worthwhile--but IMHO Trump is so bad (and any dissent hits him hard), that it is still worthwhile. I am not fan of Flake, but even if he takes a little of the wind out of Trump's sails, it's fine with me.

Face it, if he can help drive a wedge between congress and Trump, it has to be good.

[Econoline]

[Econoline]

I can agree with with Guin and Ray (and probably also Sue and others here), but...

Regardless, it has to be said: rejecting a pedophile is objectively much better than endorsing a pedophile.






ETA:

[Lord Jim]

it has to be said: rejecting a pedophile is objectively much better than endorsing a pedophile.

Yeah, but unless you also embrace all the Democratic Party legislative positions, you're just a hypocrite...

[Guinevere]

Fake news!

That’s not what I wrote at all. Want me to read back the transcript?


And Econo, yes. Do we need to reward normal behavior? WTF have we become??

[MajGenl.Meade]

Do we need to reward normal behavior? WTF have we become??

I am reminded of this:

Rita O'Grady: That is as it should be. Jesus, Eddie! What do you think this strike's all been about, eh? Oh yeah. Actually you're right. You don't go on the drink, do ya? You don't gamble, you join in with the kids, you don't knock us about. Oh, lucky me. For Christ's sake, Eddie, that's as it should be! You try and understand that. Rights, not privileges. It's that easy. It really bloody is.

[Lord Jim]

Chris Rock made much the same point in a very Un-PC comedy routine:

A nigga will brag about some shit a normal man just does. A nigga will say some shit like, "I take care of my kids." You're supposed to, you dumb motherfucker! What kind of ignorant shit is that? "I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker!

https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Chris_Rock

[Guinevere]

And there you have it, Meade, Chris Rock, and I all on the same page. It is most certainly the end of times.