Anatomy of a MAGA viral lie: Haitians eating cats

Another late posting, written 9/27/24.

"They're eating dogs," or something like that fell out of Trump's mouth in the debate. It's a reference to a viral rumor that Haiti immigrants in Springfield, OH are stealing neighbors pets and killing them for food. 

It started with a post in a private chat where a person claimed her neighbor's daughter's friend witnessed her missing cat being carved up in the yard by her Haitian neighbors. That was supplemented with a picture of a black man carrying a dead goose down a residential street in a different town. I had to search hard to find the original rumor, but here it is in a screenshot along with the goose photo.

And that rubbish went viral among brainless MAGAs. These brainless MAGAs include (according to Politifact) Elon Musk, JD Vance, Ted Cruz, the House Judiciary Committee, and then Trump blew it up at the debate. And I must mention Charlie Kirk for his hard hitting investigation with no eye witnesses and no link to the origin of the rumor. 

Some MAGAs were slow getting to the story, so they did call in a bomb threat to the Springfield City Hall until 2 days after the debate. Actually, the bomb threats originated outside the US (NEED LINK)

Image: twitter/@NancyMace

Extras. Other sources for the history of the lie. NBC. AP. CBS.

The originator of the rumor has recanted and said she didn't think it would blow up. 

This story spawned many memes like this one. In case it gets removed, it's an AI 'photo' of Trump in a blue suit, carrying two cats, and being chased by dozens of shirtless, barefoot black men. Nancy Mace tweeted the slightly less racist version of it above. 

Cruz's splash at the GOP convention

In a nutshell, Ted Cruz, the runner-up in the GOP primary, was slated to speak at the convention. The big question was would he or wouldn't he endorse Trump. Or maybe that wasn't the big question. Maybe no one knew what he was going to do. Cruz has been overshadowed by other events lately: many ghastly shootings of and by police, the countdown to Trump's VP pick announcement, and plagiarism and clumsy denial by the Trump campaign.

So perhaps Cruz was flying under the radar, and people weren't thinking that he might do something dramatic. However, Cruz is Cruz, and he is a drama queen. His speech (per reports--I won't risk vomiting by watching it) was long and full of this usual appeals to righteous conservatism. The delegates, expecting an endorsement, were getting restless. Some started shouting for the endorsement. When Cruz finished the speech without giving an endorsement, he was widely and loudly booed.

It was interesting to me to read various speculations about this incident. Megan McArdle (whom I don't like) thinks that both Cruz and Trump will be hurt by this. Allahpundit at HotAir has a detailed analysis. Key people in Trump's campaign are going to wreak vengeance on Cruz, and it started with the show of him being vociferously booed. Today there are stories that Ted Cruz will be primaried for his senate seat.

I've read a bunch of opinions, and I can't remember them all. I certainly don't agree with those who think it was a masterful turn by Cruz, showing how he's brave and principled. It's certainly believable that Cruz was still angry over Trump's accusations against his wife and his father (the ludicrous story that Cruz's father was involved with Lee Harvey Oswald). I wouldn't forgive insults like that, but then I'm not an opportunist politician.

However, Cruz will suffer because he has again been aggressive and insufferable. He spit in the eye of the GOP delegates, and smiled as he walked away. He's done that before. (At a conference of Arab Christians, he ordered them to support Israel, and then ran out to thunderous booing.) With that kind of character flaw, Cruz will probably never round up enough support to win the presidency. Thank God for that!

Image: kwwl.com

Extras. All the links above are well worth reading. Here are a few others. The Federalist luvs Ted Cruz. Bernstein writes mostly about the chaos at the convention, but this is a great observation:

"Trump doesn't want to unite his party. He wants to bully it into submission. As Ted Cruz's performance showed, the Texas senator yields to no one in the bullying department."

Why other pols loathe Cruz

I loved this article from the headline all the way through. It explains the very simple ways that Ted Cruz pretends he's a hero, when he clearly isn't. [Short version: Ted is the lone brave Republican who wants to exercise legislative leverage. But he completely ignores how that strategy failed in 2013.]

As I've said before, I think Cruz is a charlatan. He purposefully fools people. I'm not sure what his goal is in this. Maybe it's just money, but it feels like something more than that, and that's scary. Hopefully Cruz will keep fooling the small minority, and the rest of us will prevent whatever scary future Cruz would bring.

Image: tedcruziscreepy.tumbler.com

Extras. Maybe, someday, someone might write a gothic novel of what the world under Cruz would be like. I can read it and get my dark forebodings fleshed out. Until then, these articles will feed my anxiety: strange Christian supremacist theology and Cruz's father; does Cruz dogwhistle to the same theology: how a racehorse winning the Triple Crown signals the ascent of this weird theology. Alternatively, don't be silly-- Ted Cruz is just a very principled Constitutionalist.

Obviously untrue: Politician claims every word is true

It's hilarious just reading the headline:

Ted Cruz On McConnell Accusation: 'Every Word I Said Is True'

I didn't read the article yet, so please wait while I do so...

Well, there's not a lot in the article. Lyin' Ted (a great nickname for him) trying to pin his type of misdeeds on someone else. Even if another politician lies (and of course they do), that doesn't make Ted honest and truthful.

Yawn. I should have stopped at the headline, and enjoyed the irony.

Image: bbc.com

The unknown territory of a contested convention

Supposedly the last contested convention was the 1976 GOP convention. I don't remember it, That means I have no compass for guessing what will happen at the GOP convention if no candidate collects a clear majority.

So here's the closest thing to signposts that I've found. Bernstein writes that the delegates and the candidates will run the convention. The candidates are pretty well known by now, but what about the delegates? Who are they, who are they loyal (or disloyal) to, and what will their motivations be? Perhaps Cruz has enough on-the-ground infrastructure to ensure that his delegates are loyal, but can Trump? I can't even guess.

Another possibility (likely is my gut feeling) is that Trump and Cruz together will control the convention. Any establishment hopes for avoiding Awful#1 and Awful#2 will be dashed. My guess is that Cruz will be offered and will accept the nomination for vice-president. I didn't think of this myself, but once I read it, it seems absolutely perfect. They've been buddies before. They can go back to being buddies with all smears forgotten in mists of amnesia. They will share their hatred of the RINO, lying, feckless establishment, and their absolute certainty of victory... If I watch, I'll want to puke.

To avoid puking, I'd like to pretend that the GOP establishment and good sense will prevent this. But looking at the disarray in the GOP leadership, I can't imagine it will happen. It's quite hopeless. We'll be looking at a convention and a general campaign without precedent in my lifetime. So hold on tight.

Image: waregeneology.com

Extra. Read about the 1976 GOP convention, which was contested. Ford was ahead of Reagan, but neither had a lock. Nonetheless, there were clear signals early that Ford would win. 

Losing campaign manager announces formula to beat Trump

Stuart Stevens, who didn't run a particularly good campaign for Mitt Romney, thinks he knows how to defeat Trump in the primaries.

First, you attack Trump as a lousy businessman. Uh,,, no. That's a bunch of boring details and back-and-forth. Being a good businessman didn't win anything for Romney, and Trump isn't winning on it either. Being a successful, rich celebrity inflates The Donald's ego, but isn't at all essential to his campaign or his appeal. So Stuart Stevens has this wrong.

Second, you attack Trump for not telling the truth. Ok, but this only works if Trump is clearly a bigger liar than the person making the charge. Trump can call Cruz the biggest liar because Cruz sent out nasty mail in Iowa, his campaign tweeted misleading information about Carson, he attacked Rubio about immigration while lying about his own vulnerability, his website had a doctored photo falsely showing Rubio shaking Obama's hand... and that was only in the last five minutes. So Cruz can't make that accusation about Trump. Maybe Rubio can attack Cruz that way, but only if he's been more honest and stays more honest.

Third, show that Trump doesn't have the temperament to be president. First, you have to make sure voters are paying attention, so you point it out at a debate. Then you insult Trump and get him really angry. Then the voters see that Trump isn't presidential material.

There are some problems with this strategy. You have to get Trump angry without being a total asshole. Possibly, since he's been forewarned, Trump won't take the bait, and he stays even-tempered. Then your argument will backfire. And finally, even if he gets angry and says some obnoxious stuff, how will that be different from 'Mexican rapists' and the other incredibly offensive things he's said that have actually raised his popularity? This might work with a candidate whose selling point isn't being obnoxious. I don't know that it'll work with Trump.

The last suggestions from Stevens are a jumble, which is ironic because you're supposed to accuse Trump of having a jumble of policies, including some leftist ones. (Very funny if GOP candidates would go after one another for having fake health care policies, or tax policies, or budget policies, or foreign policies.)

Finally, you attack Trump with the idea that he can't restore America's pride because he's a potty mouth. There's no way he'll bring dignity to the White House.

Yes, I'm sure so many Americans are so straight-laced that they can never vote for someone like that. I suspect Stevens hasn't listened to rap, or radio, or TV, or teenagers, or 10-year-olds, or anyone younger than 50. I can promise him that we don't talk like Mormons.

Image: wittybitches.com

Extras. It was so much fun writing this as yet another GOP debate took place. Some of the best and/or strangest lines: (Three sources--Bernstein, Mother Jones, and my sweetie's twitter feed.)

• Rubio (I think/not sure) tells people to google 'Trump Polish Workers."
• Trump is now just randomly insulting Cruz for not having any friends.
• "I don't believe anything Telemundo says" is actually not how you win Hispanic votes Donald.
• Cruz refuses to say whether he'd trust Donald Trump to appoint conservative justices. 
• The Fruit Salad of Their Life
• Health care is an issue Trump clearly doesn't know anything about. Like pretty much every issue.
• Trump now hares off on a spiel about Cruz attacking his sister. He wants an apology. Cruz isn't buying.
• Bash: "Getting rid of state lines will solve all our health insurance problems?" Trump: You betcha.
• Trump wisely attacks Kasich to keep Rubio & Cruz off his back for another minute.
• "I'm relaxed. You're the basket case."
• Closed captioning just gave up. [CC: Unintelligible yelling]

And that's where the funny bits slowed down and I lost interest (except for the last two in the list). However, it seems like Trump got creamed. I can hardly wait for the next set of polls and/or primary results.

Cruz lies about his tax plan

This is no surprise. All politicians lie. Most of them lie a lot about budget issues. So, despite what Cruz' idiotic adoring fans think, Cruz has told some whoppers about his tax plan. I got the scoop from Vox, and checked it out myself.

Cruz has a plan that favors the wealthy to an incredible degree. It starts with a flat 10% income tax. It eliminates payroll taxes. Both of these may sound great to working and middle classes, but they shouldn't celebrate yet. Cruz also proposes a 19% national sales tax which he pretends is a replacement for business taxes. This will hit consumers very hard, but it's a type of tax that's very popular with conservatives. They want to tax as much consumption as possible, saying that then the drug dealers and other criminals will have to pay taxes too.

Will this bring in enough money? Of course not. So Cruz, abetted by the Tax Foundation, waves a magic wand and predicts astonishing levels of job growth and wage growth.

Do his supporters know about his tax plan? Not that I've ever seen among his supporters/commenters on the threads I read. But even if they did know, they'd probably blindly have faith. The growth will happen. It happens every time a true conservative is in the White House. DON'T YOU KNOW THAT!!!!!

Image: motherjones.com

He who must be defeated

For some GOP/conservative voices, he who must be defeated is either 1) Donald Trump, or 2) Ted Cruz.

National Review had an all anti-Trump edition. Let's see--the complaints against Trump are: his boorish behavior, doubts about his conservatism, doubts about his policies should he win, his ego, his lack of understanding about constitutional rights, etc. After reading all these critiques by conservatives, it's a good idea to read of a critique of their critiques. Jonathan Chait skewers the complainers, and throws all the criticism back at them--it's a fun read!

But maybe Cruz is even worse. National Review didn't say so, but some luminaries among the GOP did. That list starts with Sen. Orrin Hatch, Iowa governor Terry Branstad, Sen. Dan Coats, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, and finishes with has-beens John McCain, Lindsay Graham, and Bob Dole.

If you really hate one or the other, it's not hard to jump on one of these bandwagons. But what do you do if you're terrified of both Trump and Cruz? How do you decide who is the bigger menace to the GOP? Evidently, not even the GOP knows how to decide that. (Not that I have an answer--I have no fucking idea why either is such a threat other than the famous observation that suckers are born every minute.)

Enemy No. 1

Image: insideedition.com

Extras. Another witty, delightful column by Jonathan Chait with a heart-warming chuckle at the end. Don't worry, be happy. Also, Donald the newbie to bigotry. I guess Donald wins the prize for column-inches, clicks, and news-minutes.

Update 1/24/16. Two more articles worth reading. The best and clearest article states that purists, pundits, ideologues, and heads of ideological organizations support Cruz and want to defeat Trump (because he's a loose cannon and private operator who might do anything, even something liberal). The people who want to be able to make deals, that is, the operatives, lobbyists, and pragmatic elected officials, remember Cruz shutting down the government and aiming at default, and they rather work with someone who'll make deals, so Trump is less scary. So that's the breakdown of who and why. For a few extra anecdotes and fun quotes, read this article too.

Update 1/30/16. This excellent readable article does a better job explaining why conservatives shouldn't support Trump than National Review did. Of course, it does that by telling how conservatives keep on being duped. NR can't exactly say that.

Crazy GOP nominee now looks likely

There's a theory that the GOP movers and shakers choose the nominee, and the primaries are kabuki or smoke signals within that process. Readers of Bernstein know this as 'the party decides' thesis. It explains why the GOP nominee is squishier than the base of Limbaugh dittoheads would like: McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012.

This year might be the year when the squishes get their comeuppance, and a real conservative (TM) wins. Right now, it looks to me as though Trump will win. His support had a few small dips, but then he surged back stronger than before. Cruz is running a fairly close second, though he's less popular outside the Bible Belt.

None of the establishment candidates (Bush, Rubio, Christie, or Kasich) is even a close third. For one of them to win, he would have to surge pretty quickly, and time is running out. Iowa is 2/1, New Hampshire is 2/9, South Carolina is 2/20, and Nevada is 2/23. Then a glut of primaries on Super Tuesday, 3/1.

But while writing this, perhaps I'm changing my mind. There may be time even after the March 1 primaries to change the overall direction. However, in the recent past, the direction was set early, before Super Tuesday. Maybe this year the contestants will be slugging it out all through March and April. That would certainly be exciting.

But if the GOP follows the usual pattern, we'll know the leader and the eventual winner by the end of February. If that's true this time, it will be one of the crazies, either Trump or Cruz. God help us.

Image: dailydiscord.com

Extras. From a couple weeks ago, and feeling dated, two views on how Trump will lose. From Vox, Trump has momentum only while winning. Once he starts losing, the magic fizzles and the tantrums start. From Ross Douthat at the NY Times, the race will come down to three, and the establishment candidate will then win. Among the less sure, I'm not the only person who sees Trump as a possibility now.  Plus, another great image.

Image: rawstory.com

Update 3/9/16. We still don't know who the nominee will be, but the establishment candidate are bringing up the rear. The crazies are the leaders. Interesting times. 

Questioning whether Ted Cruz is an extremist

I've seen Ted Cruz labeled an extremist so many times, and that's generally my own impression, but I forgot to actually ask the question whether he is an extremist. Does Cruz actually hold extreme positions? His most well-known position was being against Obamacare, which is so common among Republicans that it can't be called extremist. So I wondered about extremist positions--whether he's advocated truly extreme positions such as deporting or locking up large numbers of people, establishing religious tests for civil rights, overthrowing the current government by insurrection, or some such.

I don't remember any policy position like that. But where did the impression of extremism come from then? It could be his rhetoric, such as calling Obama an apologist for Islamist terrorists. That's an extreme thing for an elected official to say out loud. It's more typical of political shock-jocks, not those who are supposed to be responsible, judicious, and fair.

Looking at Cruz's rhetoric, it's easy to find violations of the norms. He'll imply that Obama is a totalitarian, or that former senator Chuck Hagel was in the pay of North Korea. He'll advocate carpet bombing in the Mideast, as though carpet bombing didn't mean killing or wounding every living person in the effected area. It's the equivalent of say "Kill them all and let God sort them out."

His associations are scary. His father, Rev. Raphael Cruz, who frequently campaigns with Ted (making it hard for the son to distance himself) says such things as Obama is trying to destroy Christianity in the US. Other extreme associations include supporters of Uganda's death penalty for homosexuals.

Cruz's tactics aren't mainstream. When the GOP in Congress was voting in vain to repeal Obamacare, Cruz encouraged the 'defund Obamacare' strategy, though perhaps it was rhetoric and not meant to be seriously followed as a strategy. Nonetheless, it led to a government shutdown, and Cruz got much of the credit and/or blame.

I'm not sure I can point to other tactics that might be considered extreme, so I guess Cruz's extremism is primarily in his rhetoric and somewhat in his associations. But there's plenty of that. Just Google it.

Image: wrongforminnestoa.com

Extras. Quite the catalog on Ted Cruz at Right Wing Watch. Outlawing abortion without a constitutional amendment? Totally possible. Here are those 8 outrageous quotes. A fake Cruz quote, so don't trust memes.

Ted Cruz, he's my man!

A commenter on Bloomberg who's occasionally sensible linked to a website that compares your views to the candidates, and tells which ones you're closest to.

I'm 78% with Bernie Sanders, aside from electability, tax policy, escalating social programs, and maybe a few other dealbreakers. But that's not the biggest surprise.

At the same time I'm 78% with Bernie, I'm also 56% with Ted Cruz!

Maybe it was the lack of questions about whether I personally detest any particular candidates. I could hate Bernie for being an Eastern commie-leaning Jew. Maybe I hate Hillary for being a fat, bitchy, pantsuit-wearing liberal woman, Maybe I loathe Ted Cruz being a conniving, political con artist.

Without questions like these, the website's algorithm concludes that I agree with Cruz over half the time. But I still have to wonder why. Luckily, the website states the reasons. For example:

Should the U.S. reduce corporate income tax rates? 

Ted Cruz: Switch to a flat tax with no deductions. 

[My] similar answer: Yes, but eliminate loopholes and require corporations to pay a minimum tax.

I can't report all the times that the algorithm thought I and Ted were somewhat on the same page just because I'm not a total liberal with major socialist leanings. Here's a supposed partial similarity between Ted and me:

Should foreign terrorism suspects be given constitutional rights?

Ted Cruz: No, they are not U.S. citizens and should be subject to enhanced interrogation methods.

[My] similar answer: No, they should be tried in military tribunals but not subject to torture.

I'm adamantly against torture, Ted Cruz seems to be adamantly pro-torture, but you couldn't tell from the way this question was weighted. Thank God for the explanations, where I could see how far I actually am from that despicable charlatan.

If you want to good laugh, take the test and see how much you have in common with your most hated presidential candidate.

Image: isidewith.com

Surviving the same-sex marriage decision

As I wrote often, Rod Dreher, a religious/cultural blogger, regularly moaned about the growing support for same-sex marriage. His complaints reached a pinnacle (or maybe more than one) as he tried to find the culprit for the fall of marriage from a holy sacrament (joining man, woman, and God) to a piece of toilet paper freely available to perverts.

How badly has Dreher freaked out now that the US will have legal same-sex marriage all over the country?

He's not doing too badly. He's on a trip to Italy right now, enjoying the food, history, and street festivals, or preferable all three at the same time. He's got the right idea. Before the total downfall of Western civilization, I'd like to spend more time in Italy too.

Image: theamericanconservative.com

It's rather sentimental of me to wonder whether this opponent has survived the ruling. Not that I really worried that anyone was going to kill himself over this ruling. Nearly everyone saw it coming. Justice Kennedy, the usual swing vote on the Supreme Court, had voted to declare some of DOMA unconstitutional two years ago, so it wouldn't take clairvoyance to foresee this ruling.

So almost all saw this coming. Almost all let the LGBTQ and allies celebrate their victory unmolested. There were rainbow sprinkles all over Facebook, and, with triumphalism, rainbow lighting on the White House. Not exactly tactful or magnanimous.

Image: forum.bandmix.com

Some GOP presidential candidates said stupid things, but that's an everyday occurrence. Let's see, Bobby Jindal called for the money-saving move of abolishing the Supreme Court. I wonder if he followed up with a paean to the Constitution. Based on headlines, Jindal won the 'GOP leader stupid contest' over the perennial winner Ted Cruz. Cruz was probably runner-up, though, with the suggestion that Supreme Court justices face elections every 8 years. This idea suffers from being too complex, especially compared to Jindal's simple and pure stupidity.

Culture warriors warn of several looming crises.

1. The polygamists are coming!
2. The pedophiles are coming!
3. It won't be safe to express anti-gay beliefs.
4. Churches will lose their tax-exempt status.
5. This is the final straw that ends marriage in the US.
6. This is the final straw that ends the American experiment in democracy.
7. Anyone who doesn't cheer on same-sex marriage will risk losing their job.

Except for the panicking dissenting justices, there aren't many who are still predicting the swift demise of the US, so the response is more moderate than expected. After all, not all these looming crises are completely ludicrous. No, pedophilia won't be legalized, but the concerns about the chilling of viewpoints are well founded. (More posts later on that.)

One fascinating thing I learned is how widespread the gay pride movement is. I looked for images of the rainbow flag, and found it in Venezuela, Brazil, Peru, Mexico, Turkey, Israel, Russia, Serbia, Taiwan, Cambodia, China, and a huge number of images for India. The movement for tolerance is a world-wide phenomenon, not just a parochial battle in the US culture war. I still haven't grasped how momentous this movement is.

Image: citizenside.com

Extra. Perhaps before he left for Italy (judging from the tone), Dreher wrote a hilarious post about the future. It includes: polygamy, gay gated communities, all marriages gone queer, and no religious institutions left standing. No irrationality there! Here is Chicken Little:

"I remember a time, practically the day before yesterday, when conservatives who warned that gay marriage would inevitably deconstruct marriage and family entirely were called paranoid bigots."

This prediction is based on one gay novelist's imagination of life in 2035. But that is enough to declare "gay marriage [will] inevitably deconstruct marriage and family entirely." Yeah, right.

GOP stands up to the Tea Party Part 2

So many thoughts. Not so many complete sentences.

GOP standing up to Tea Party. Orrin Hatch blasts Heritage. Corporate backers stick with Boehner, toy with the idea of backing establishment Republicans against Tea Partyers.

Tea Party not backing down. RedState doesn't want a house divided; it wants a house purged.

Tea Party is still behind its belief that Obamacare can be stopped/defunded/gutted. They pretend that this was the plan all along, to fight tooth and nail, close down government, do everything they can. But that's a story that only started over the summer.

In this article, RedState blames the GOP for not following through on defund promises, but all the early articles it refers to talk about broad fiscal goals, not Obamacare. I checked the RedState archives: Ben Carson, black neurologist hero of the Tea Party, had lots of complaints about Obama, not just Obamacare. In a February article, the focus was on governors refusing to set up exchanges. Search for "defund," "repeal," and "delay" in articles from that time and you'll see that it wasn't part of the vocabulary then.

Rush Limbaugh, another big voice (and big ego) for the Tea Party, isn't backing down either. He wants Ted Cruz and Mike Lee times 5 or 10 or 45 in the Senate. Per the Washington Times, the Tea Party is "poised for a major victory in the larger Obamacare War." Details absent, though.

Image: usnews.com

Extras. History of the shutdown per Politico. How the House voted on the measure to end the shutdown and raise the debt limit. How the Senate voted. Currently the Senate has about 10 senators with similar strategies to Ted Cruz/Mike Lee. After the 2014 election, who knows.

So many great images to choose from. Google image search: GOP stands up to tea party cartoon.

Another RedState article where they look at evidence but still somehow manage to draw the wrong conclusion--that is, the conclusion they want to draw.

Day6: Thin strands of hope...

... but probably not. Perhaps Boehner shifted today toward a fiscal settlement rather than insisting on emasculating Obamacare. But on closer inspection, it looks like Obamacare is still a central focus. Ted Cruz is saying that they need to mitigate the damage of Obamacare. Boehner is saying "It is time for us to stand and fight."

Somewhere I read that the GOP will stand firm until midnight of the Oct. 16, one whole day before the debt default. So in the final 24 hours, we may have another day of mad scampering, proposals launched willy-nilly, and Ted Cruz thundering with unblinking, blood-shot eyes all day. My guess is that if we get to the Oct. 16 without some bargaining, nothing on Oct. 17 will be enough to end the impasse.

Image: politico.com

Day2 roundup: GOP plan, maybe. Tea Party plan, no.

So two days into the government shutdown, where are we? The GOP still seems to be scrambling around for a plan, but perhaps there are glimmers of one. Robert Costa, reporter for National Review, seems to have the best inside information. I've been reading his tweets since about 10pm on 9/30/13, and it's interesting. He seemed to learn very quickly what the House leadership's next move would be, like the ridiculous call for a conference committee to work out a deal in, oh, 1 hour.

So this morning, Costa tweets that Paul Ryan is going to try for a combo dealing covering both funding and debt limit, that will be "fiscal." What does that mean? My guess is that negotiations will focus on budget issues, particularly spending cuts to lower the deficit. Delaying or defunding Obamacare won't be the focus.

But wait. Early this afternoon, Costa tweets that the leadership will follow the Cruz strategy of funding everything piecemeal--probably everything except Obamacare and the EPA.

Nope, that didn't last. Mid-afternoon, Costa is tweeting again about Ryan being the lead bargainer on a grand deal. Again, there's nothing about Obamacare in this.

Does the conservative press know about this? I checked HotAir. They're referring to Costa and Politico, and speculating that maybe Ryan can pressure the Dems on Obamacare, or maybe he'll go for a more "traditional" fiscal deal. Meaning--like the sequester, which didn't touch Obamacare.

At Breitbart, a no-name columnist wants to keep the Cruz plan, but it's not a forward-looking column about what could or will happen in the next few weeks--so no plan there. TownHall, NewsMax, nothing on the Tea Party plan. Only at RedState, Erickson wants go back to defunding Obamacare and threatening any non-compliant Republicans with oblivion. It will work!!!!!!

What are the Dems doing? Waiting for the Republicans to sew themselves together into a semblance of a political force and make their next proposal, which hopefully will make more sense and last longer than the three four throw-away GOP proposals of Shutdown Eve.

Image: huffingtonpost.com

Extra. Belatedly in honor of Ted Cruz:

Image:  hyenacart.com

Short: But what is the alternative to...

What are the alternatives to Obamacare? I ask this question regular. What would have been the alternatives to the stimulus or alternative composition of the stimulus? Who were the alternatives to Mitt Romney? I definitely asked that question.

But here's a question I didn't ask: If you're a Republican, what alternatives do you have? There aren't many Republicans making good policy suggestions, but you don't just want to fold. Ted Cruz is offering an alternative, and he's one of the few doing it. At least that's what Bernstein writes.

There is something to this argument. However, a big reason that there aren't more Republicans making suggestions is that either:

1. The GOP have pretty much run dry on ideas.
2. Republicans with ideas are staying mum because they don't want to draw the attention and ire of the very vengeful Tea Party. 
3. (Holding place for other possibilities. I'm sure there are others that I can't think of.)

So maybe I have to disagree with Bernstein. Maybe the biggest problem isn't that the GOP isn't offering any alternative ideas to Cruz's approach. The problem is the Tea Party will rip apart anyone who offers a different idea. They are the equivalent of a Somali militia, I guess... maybe... really? I'm afraid maybe it's true.

Image: mw.nl

Extra. The Economist is kinder. They compare the Tea Party to the Students for a Democratic Society or Joe McCarthy. The author wants to compare them to some unnamed totalitarians (Stalin, anybody?), but doesn't want to get spammed be inflammatory.

Roundup: Still no Tea Party Plan

So the House surprised watchers by sending a hopeless funding bill to certain dismemberment in the Senate. The Senate even has a timetable for the dismemberment (Cruz yaks on Tuesday through Wednesday noon, cloture vote Wednesday, strip out Obamacare defunding Friday or Saturday, pass it, send it back to House for possible rinse and repeat). The Senate, anticipating the reaction from the House, might make it a short term funding bill only through November or December.

What is the Tea Party plan now? I went looking for it, inspired by Bernstein's very detailed guess about what would be happening in the House concerning the continuing resolution and debt ceiling votes (worth reading).

So this is what I found.

HotAir is telling its TP audience that Boehner's response will be a bill to delay Obamacare. HotAir warns that there will be a shutdown, but that will just light a fire under the lazy Senate.

Several voices are telling Tea Partiers that it's hopeless. Since they lost the election, Obamacare is going ahead and it can't be defunded. When John McCain tells them, the TP is defiant. Erick Erickson at RedState is defiant. He seems to think Cruz has a plan, but forgets to say what it is. At Breitbart, a columnist with that reality message is labeled a progressive, and the message is derided. Elsewhere at Breitbart, it's hooray for Cruz.

There are no signs that the Tea Party has a plan and even realizes the need for a plan. There's no discussion that "we do this, then they'll do that, then we'll counter with this." Nothing like that at all. These people are absurd in their lack of awareness that other people exist and have power. How did they get to be so oblivious? Jennifer Rubin, who is usually worthless, explains that they wrongly extrapolate their media share.

So are there any indications of what the Tea Party will do next? No. However, the ball will soon be back at the House, so the House leadership is trying to figure out its next move. They haven't ironed it out yet, as time ticks away to October 1. Politico reports the next House bill might delay the implementation of Obamacare. That would be another hopeless volley, and shutdown would follow. Perhaps the Washington Post report is more accurate--that the House might do something with a debt-limit increase and lots of sweeteners for GOP causes. It's not reported what the plan for funding is.

So it's all as clear as mud right now, 4.5 days away from the end of statutory funding. Thank you, Tea Party.

Image: citizenchris.typepad.com

Same day update: A preview of the proposal from the House shows one aspect of the Tea Party plan. They plan to make the fight as bloody as possible in non-contact politics. See the likely new demands. The Tea Party will be stabbing and nicking anyone who isn't a complete supporter. And they've invited their ravening friends to watch.

Update 9/27/13. Still no plan. House GOP to meet Saturday.

Short: Who's selling out whom in the GOP?

I didn't notice last night, but there's a snafu going on in the GOP right now. It seems that after goading the GOP for months to defund Obamacare, and within hours of the House announcing that it would try to do so, Ted Cruz announced that the Senate won't go along with that.

This shouldn't have been news to anyone. Dems hold the majority in the Senate. There is no way on earth that they were going to pass a continuing resolution that defunds Obamacare. So why is this news to various GOP congressmen or GOP constituencies? Perhaps some operatives have been spinning a story and forgetting (wink, wink) to mention a couple details. And perhaps some incredibly foolish people in the audience didn't realize this.

Now a bunch of people are pissed, and others are trying to quell it. Here are some of the reactions from HotAir:

Strategic: "I don’t understand the anger and angst towards Cruz. What has he said that he hasn’t always said? And did he say he was caving himself? The reality has always been that only the House can defund ObamaCare. If the House doesn’t agree to a CR, then there’s no CR."

Pissed: "Vichy Republicans: If you do not stand firm against Obamacare, and try hard to stop it, I hope you have a job lined up after 2014." 

Even more pissed: "You lying sacks of %#^?~{€*?. You’re not getting money from me or my new generation of voters me and Mammy is influencing. We’re not walking door to door for you. We’re not working phones for you. We’re not supporting one freaking #^*+!{]~£ thing you push unless you DEFUND OBAMACARE and STOP PUSHING AMNESTY!!!"

Cruz lied? "I went to Cruz’ event in Dallas. They specifically said this was not true. They said if you shut the government down, the statutory spending in Øbamacare does happen. However, if you defund the whole program, no spending on it happens at all."

Resolute: "We need to be their backbone – or broomstick if you will." 

Resigned: "Lord save us from this ridiculous soap opera. If there were really the votes to undo the ACA in a meaningful way — something I strongly favor, by the way — they could just repeal it. The idea that R’s, controlling one branch of Congress, can defund a law that they lack the votes to repeal is a fantasy." 

I think this disagreement will blow over... until the strategy fails, if it does as I expect it to. Then there will be more recriminations among the GOP. I'm not going to guess what those will be. I refuse to even try crawling up into those reptile brains.

Image: ijreview.com

Extras. A boring explanation of the plan using a checkbook metaphor. When you look at the details, is defunding even enough?

Save the country--defund Obamacare

This has been a mantra for conservatives for several years now: Obamacare will ruin the US. I won't repeat the nonsense of how Obamacare will cause the collapse of the US, or refute that nonsense here.

Though the GOP ran on this slogan, they didn't win. Certainly many GOP representatives and senators won election or re-election on that platform, but they lost the presidency and lost seats in the House and Senate. However, the campaigns were complicated with  fiscal issues, personality issues, abortion issues, psycho personal viewpoints on abortion,etc. It wasn't a clear referendum on Obamacare.

Finally we will have a one-on-one decision about Obamacare. It will be Obamacare vs. no Obamacare. Non-essential government will shut down on October 1, and it will stay that way until one side or the other capitulates.

Who will capitulate? Supposedly it will be the side that gets more blame from the general public. But there won't be a vote to determine that, so it will be whoever floods Congress with more calls. Ted Cruz has famously told conservatives "Don't blink," meaning don't capitulate, no matter what. I'm fairly sure he won't consider whether sentiment is running against the shutdown, but many in Congress will consider it. So soon we will see.

What's the likely outcome? As I noted, the last election wasn't a straight up-or-down decision on Obamacare, as it is now, so there is room for a different outcome.

Still, I'm going with the indicators from the 2012 election. Obamacare will survive. The kill-Obamacare-before-it-breathes forces will lose. If the shutdown lasts too long, the losers will pay an extra penalty for their stubbornness, and we should see that in the 2014 midterm elections.

One benefit of this showdown is that the test will finally be performed, and we will have an outcome. All those conservatives urging a tough stance on this issue will find out whether they are the majority or not. If they're wrong, I hope they will finally STFU.

Image: tdicamps.wikia.com

Short: Will Republicans let other Republicans drive drunk?

Will the more establishment Republican senators, like Coburn of Oklahoma, Cornyn of Texas, and of course Mitch McConnell, let the Tea Party senators delay the appropriations bills due on Sept. 30? That's what rebels Mike Lee and Ted Cruz are planning. They have threatened to stop any bill with funding for Obamacare, so the target is the Continuing Resolution for the next fiscal year starting Oct. 1. That is a promise to shut down federal government.

So, will the other GOP senators hand them the keys? That's the only unknown for the next two months. It's screaming for a ModeratePoli prediction, but I don't know yet. I'll update here when I have a solid guess.

Josh Barro, my new favorite pundit, says the sober ones will keep the keys. I'm rooting for the other option. Guess why! (No hints.)

Image: carkeyphiladelphiacarkeysphiladelphia.blogspot.com (really)

Meanwhile, the Dems continue their winning strategy of not letting the crazy get loose. Boring...