Trouble Ahead for Speaker Ryan & Good Vibes in The House

Saturday, 13 February, 2016

At a House GOP conference yesterday, the peacemaking sentiment(s) heretofore expressed by House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) have come under duress before the years’ legislative journey has even truly begun. The so-called “Omnibus” spending deal made to fund the government has sharply divided a Caucus that hardly needed another reason to bicker.

speakerryan

The Speaker, however, made clear his incisive perspective on how “The People’s House” should proceed is limited to three options: go with the status quo, do nothing, or continue into the new year with the feel-good rhetoric of the Speaker and seize on what the Honorable Mr. Ryan feels is an opportunity to bring about a substantial cut in entitlement spending if the House plays ball. The Senate, being the historically less-conservative house, is far less likely to go along with any attempt conjured up by the House to force a confrontation with the President over any significant spending cuts.

While any notable commentary cited coming out of the conference was given on condition of anonymity, several Congressmen offered pointed remarks on both sides of the fence.

“I heard some new ideas but I didn’t hear any new sentiment,” stated Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC). However, he liked the fact that the conference took place at all: “That meeting would never have taken place under the previous leadership. In the past we were essentially told ‘vote for this or you’re a bad Republican.’ There was an entirely different sense in that room [yesterday].”

Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ) cut through the fat and painted the picture quite succinctly: “We either write our appropriations bills to be completely acceptable to Democrats and thereby enrage the Republican base or we allow the Democrats to silently and stealthily shut the government down. Those are our two options. That is not a paradigm that we can survive in.”

However, the comments of Rep. Devin Nunes presented a rather stark tone of disdain for those in favor of spending cuts: “If you want to do phony work and if you want to go out to the [House] floor and talk about a bunch of phony stuff that sounds nice and put it up on YouTube and go back to your district and say we’re the only ones really fighting, then options one or two are your choice. If you actually want to do real work, then option three is your choice.”

While pragmatism must accompany idealism in order to cross bridges or, perhaps at times, to mend fences specifically as relates to the budget process, it is highly discouraging to see the sentiment of those who see spending as out of control viewed from such a snide perspective. With the national debt striking the $19 trillion mark, there is pervasive concern throughout both the House Freedom Caucus and much of the Heartland that every spending “deal,” every peacemaking compromise tends to strengthen the position of everyone but those in favor of returning spending to levels more sustainable in the long term.

More on the new legislative agenda as emerges from Capitol Hill.

DeViney, Jack

Political Beast: Justin Amash and Why He Left The GOP

UNITED STATES – MAY 22: Rep. Justin Amash, R-Mich., walks to the Rayburn House Office building on Wednesday, May 22, 2019. (Photo By Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

Justin Amash, Representative, 3rd Congressional District, Michigan, announced in an open letter on Independence Day that he was exiting the Republican Party. He will finish his current term as an Independent. His short, well-written explanation in the Washington Post intrigued Political Beast, and has pushed us to respond.

 

Amash’s actions and letter do not occur in a vacuum. Throughout the laborious process known as the Mueller Report, Amash has consistently reminded us that Congress has a responsibility to look hard at facts and to be guided hard by them. This responsibility exists regardless of party affiliation, and Amash’s interpretation of the evidence is that President Trump is guilty of abuse of power and attempting in an informal way to circumvent the investigation of a Special Prosecutor. Thus, the president deserves to be impeached by Congress. This is Amash’s belief, and Republicans will not agree. None of them. The energetic response of Amash’s fellow Republicans has been widely heard on the nightly news, as they distance themselves from his positions and call him, “misguided.” His ideas, “unfortunate.” Wherever you lay your political picnic blanket as we watch the never-ending Trump fireworks, we thought you would appreciate a quick summary of Congressman Amash’s background, his argument for leaving the Party (and the Conservative ranks), and why this matters for everyone on the left or the right. And everyone else.

It’s embarrassing that widespread ignorance dictates we start here, but here we are: Representative Amash (I-MI) is not a Muslim, and he is an American. He’s the son of two Arab Christian immigrants, grew up near Grand Rapids, graduated from University of Michigan Law, and was elected to Congress on a small-government, low-tax, personal responsibility slate of positions. The man is not a leftist. The man was a founding member of the House Freedom Caucus and was supported strongly by members of the Tea Party. Granted, the Freedom Caucus passed a resolution (unanimously) expressing disapproval of Amash’s views on Trump’s deserving impeachment, but anyone who attacks this guy based on his lack of Conservative credentials is not barking up the wrong tree. They’re drunk pissing on a light pole.

[DeViney: “He’s referring to President Nixon (R-CA), just so we’re clear here.”]
The Congressman’s letter (although published in a paper that is still intoxicated from bringing down one Republican president a half-century ago) is not partisan at all. In fact, it takes equal aim at both sides of the aisle. Most of the op-ed is dedicated to quotes from George Washington’s farewell speech to Congress. This was an address President Washington did not have to give. Hell, no one ever asked him to leave office at all! Washington did leave, however, and he dedicated his address to what he considered the greatest threat to America’s democracy: partisanship. Both parties, all parties, any party. Amash claims his experience in Congress, especially recently, has led him to accept that the current two-party system has become an “existential threat” to the country. This has been mocked and derided by press of all stripes, and this particular press member isn’t defending the Congressman, only pointing out: this is what President Washington (I-VA) said. Say what you will.

And that’s all. The guy’s as Christian, as American, and as conservative as any talking head on FNC; he just seems to be more introspective and contemplative than average for a right-winger. He hasn’t declared whether he’ll run for another term in Congress, and he’s currently considering a run for President on the Libertarian ticket. Whatever his future, if the Congressman remains as principled as he was in his Rexit, we’ll remain intrigued.

Read More

NeoSpeak: Flynn-again, Intel and Greatest Smokescreen of All Time(?)

If one good turn truly deserves another (as the timeless axiom goes), then it’s no small feat that Washington D.C. manages to accomplish anything at all. The plot has thickened and twisted and turned over the past year-plus (before the 30 April, 2016 official launch of ModState) in a mind-numbing array of shocks that often are no longer considered as much.

Case in point? While I follow this perennial trainwreck on a level almost worthy of the label “hourly” I still can’t quite surmise what in God’s name is going on with the House Intelligence Committee in terms of the Chairman’s motivation, why the POTUS would encourage Gen. Flynn to seek immunity, and why the MSM (mainstream media) persists in yet another round of “Handwriting On the Wall” predictions about the demise of Donald J. Trump that ought hold no more weight. Ever. Why?

To each: if Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) was attempting to “help” the President (as he has been “charged” by the pan-PR firm of the Democratic Party, also known as “The Mainstream Media”) he certainly has a funny way of showing it. While it’s difficult to surmise a willing member of the President’s transition team would deliberately aim to hurt the Executive Office, several items offering more clarity include that ruling out the involvement of President Obama and not denying the FBI’s non-involvement are not only items that don’t help Trump but, regardless of tactical missteps, Rep. Nunes clearly must be granted the benefit of the doubt here. He’s amongst the more reserved, non-inflammatory members of both Houses of Congress and has more than ample support (including prior colleagues and supporters) back home in Central Valley California stating clearly that Nunes is not the type to commit an act of such marked importance out of a desire for publicity. The man has hardly made news since being appointed by former House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) to his current post as said Intel Committee Chairman.

Next, when the Feds offer someone immunity, it can implicate guilt or a desire to simply offer protection and/or reassurance to a potential whistleblower in exchange for valuable testimony. There are several, well-documented examples of this in the nonstop revolving door of names involved in the Clinton E-mail/Clinton Foundation debacles. In this case, however, that Gen. Flynn (USA ret.) is openly seeking immunity on his own would constitute “strange” handily. Add to it the even more bizarre note that President Trump is openly encouraging Flynn to do so and there’s more questions than answers (again). First, let’s get this out of the way in that yes, when you seek immunity, more often than not it’s (to one degree or another) an acknowledgement of guilt. While it could be for protection or reassurances in exchange for testimony, again, that tends to pertain to individuals the government has sought out, and not the other way around. That someone as high-profile as Flynn would not even attempt to hide his tactical decision-making is, again, odd but the greatest quandary of them all: why would President Trump give such a move by Flynn two thumbs-up, particularly after the equally-bizarre move of labeling his own White House as being under siege similar to Watergate. And, no hyperbole here, the POTUS actually namedropped Watergate…on his own administration.

In a quick close to this short, while I successfully “called” The Rust Belt for Trump (joining Michael Moore in so doing), I’ll refrain from predicting invincibility here while making a very clear assertion: the media (especially of the mainstream variety) needs to learn from recent history replete with examples of the laughability of calling Trump’s time limited or issuing clarion calls, warning of his “undoubtedly” imminent demise. The truth is, we’ve been listening to the same talking heads issue failed memo after disingenuous full-frontal public vomit following each seeming outrage (“bleeding from her wherever”, “Little” Marco, “Lyin’ Ted,” “Crooked” Hillary, “grab ‘em by the” [meow], et al]. As much as the MSM (again, the DNC’s own PR firm) would love to be correct once a decade, they may have to wait awhile longer as pertains to the current POTUS because, sure, we quip “where there’s smoke there’s fire.” But in the case of the MSM and the Teflon Donald, they might better serve their egos and collective reputations (all the better for holiday cocktail season) by acknowledging the stunning repeal of the Propaganda Act (and it being hidden in the military budget of 2013, no less) and the frightening divesture of central control over the privacy of, yes, private citizens behind what looks like the biggest smokescreen of all time.

Until there is a smoking gun (never seen one; always a caterpillar or some maladjusted Berkeley “Bro” I see smoking) that the media is failing to find out of love for Trump, give it a rest. Nobody in the MSM cared about Uranium One’s significant (as in $30+ million) investment in the Clinton Foundation, and that’s troublesome given their status as a Russian oligarchy puppet corporation.

Why not talk about all of this instead of just some of it? I hate repeating myself and so I’ll let everyone off for the day (provided good behavior) if you’ll only recall who I’ve kindly reminded e’rr’body just who handles the DNC’s PR. Au revoirs!

Read More

Podcast Response to POTUS Trump’s Address to Joint Session of U.S. Congress

POTUS Trump w/his Florida campaign mastermind, Mississippi attorney Mitchell Tyner

In what is far and away our shortest podcast to date, Gabe Coker hosted an episode of his “Political Beast” podcast Tuesday night immediately following President Trump’s first address to a joint session of the United States Congress. He kindly invited me to join him and at 24 minutes nearly on the dot, it’s a quick and easy listen.

In the interest of full disclosure and providing us both with a dose of humility, Gabriel says the date is January 28th (as opposed to 28 February) at the outset and, later on, intending to say the POTUS hasn’t been in office 100 days yet I said “100 months.” While the latter remark is certainly true (as he hasn’t been in office 100 months) it’s a worse mistake, I feel, as 96 months (8 years) is the longest one may serve in consecutively-elected terms. Granted, it is possible to eclipse the 100-month mark if one came into power by way of removal of the prior POTUS with two years left on his/her term and then went on to be elected twice to the position. Thus, the maximum time allowed in the office of POTUS is ten years, per the 22nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

The 22nd Amendment details the limitation of the length of any POTUS’ reign to two consecutive terms and, in case of removal of the prior POTUS, a total of ten years. The urban legend goes that while, yes, FDR is the obvious cause of this that the Democrats truly feared Eisenhower would never leave office and thus, the 22nd. (Yes, he was apparently THAT popular).

Regardless, these silly errors are likely due to rushing to get the product done and out the proverbial door; not an excuse but an explanation.

On a far brighter note, while we conducted this podcast long-distance (Gabe hosting in Jackson, state capitol of Mississippi) and I called in (from Metairie, Louisiana, where the New Orleans Saints are headquartered), this was the first official foray by OverWatch Productions in their newfound role of media editing and production for our podcasts, et cetera. Eddie Matuk, as co-founder and lead engineer of the firm, did a great job of improving the clarity and making my voice via cell phone sound not as distorted as it normally would. In addition to future episodes of the podcast, OverWatch will also be responsible for the audio engineering of our pending video/web series’ and simulcasts as ModState‘s parent company, in turn, takes the reins of social media promotion (LinkedIn, specifically) and graphic design reboot for our new network allies.

We’re obviously rather excited about this development and, in the meantime, we do hope you appreciate this short, rapid response to POTUS Trump’s excellent primetime speech.

 

Read More