Type to search

A Congress Divided

Memo Pad Politics

A Congress Divided


WASHINGTON — The Senate provided the country a rare and modest glimpse of bipartisanship in its 68-32 passage of the comprehensive immigration reform bill laboriously accomplished by the Gang of Eight — four Democrats and four Republicans. But overcoming the rigid and obstructionist partisanship of the House Republicans will be another matter.

House Speaker John Boehner, like a chief lemming leading his followers over a cliff, warned in advance of that Senate vote, in which 14 Republicans broke party ranks, that his flock would continue its obdurate ways on the politically explosive immigration issue.

“For any legislation, including a conference report, to pass the House,” Boehner proclaimed, “it’s going to have to be a bill that has the support of the majority of our members.” He obviously was referring to the GOP side alone, as if the House Democrats weren’t members of what senators call “the other body.”

It’s a party position that former House Speaker Dennis Hastert often insisted upon in his abbreviated tenure. It was designed to assure that the House Republicans would work their will on the full House in an our-way-or-the-highway invitation to stalemate.

Boehner in adhering to this posture endangers not only the prospect for meaningful immigration reform. He also jeopardizes his party’s political outlook in 2014 and 2016 and his own speakership. He continues to genuflect before the most conservative House Republicans, driven by Tea-Party recalcitrance, who nevertheless increasingly favor his disposal.

The 14 Senate Republicans apparently hope their support of the bipartisan compromise will ameliorate their party’s problem with Hispanic voters, so graphically demonstrated by their 70 percent vote against GOP standard-bearer Mitt Romney in 2012. But the Senate version, heavy on fattened border security but allowing a path to American citizenship for undocumented aliens, will mean little politically if their House brethren refuse to buy into key elements of it.

President Obama did not hesitate to goad the House Republicans to follow the lead of the small band of Senate Republicans who followed GOP Sens. John McCain and Jeff Flake of Arizona, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, and Marco Rubio of Florida in getting off the naysay trail for once.

In all the Republican post-mortems after the Romney defeat, a deafening chorus was heard arguing that the party should address the wide loss of Hispanic, Asian and African-American voters in the 2012 election. Boehner, an astute and practical politician, surely got the message, but appears throttled by the Tea-Party constituency that now dominates his flock.

Until the 14 Senate Republicans cast their votes for the Gang of Eight’s immigration reform package, conservatives in both houses had at least the comfort of knowing they were all in the same boat. The challenge for Boehner, after one-third of the Senate Republican membership voted with the Democrats, is to prevent further leakage in his foundering House craft.

Obama and fellow Democrats, frustrated throughout the president’s first term by Republican congressional roadblocks, are looking to next year’s midterm elections to break the jam, expecting enhanced support from minority voters. The same elections could likewise determine Boehner’s political future if he continues to allow the most extreme elements of his constituency of the right to set a stubborn and resistant course to genuine immigration reform.

At a minimum, Boehner needs to get off his insistence that the House must and will go its own way on the issue, writing a package that can capture “a majority of the majority” membership. Such an outcome will only end in negating a rare example of Senate bipartisanship achieved in a Congress that once marked its most productive and laudatory days under both Democratic and Republican presidents.,

Last November, the Republican brand suffered a body blow with a presidential campaign that only reinforced its image as the party of the white and the well-off. The continuing fight over immigration reform can be a GOP opportunity to combat that view, but not unless Boehner and Co. seize it as their 14 Senate brethren have done.

(Jules Witcover’s latest book is Joe Biden: A Life of Trial and Redemption (William Morrow). You can respond to this column at juleswitcover@comcast.net.)


  1. Dominick Vila July 2, 2013

    I suspect that most of the congressmen that don’t want to even consider immigration law reform, are rejecting what they know is right because they fear the backlash they will get from their constituents, and because of the pressure they are under from those that fund their campaigns.
    The fact that the House of Representatives does not even want to take a bill passed with overwhelming bipartisan support by the Senate to the floor for the debate and vote it deserves demonstrates the fears and hatred that dominate the opinions and influence the actions of many of our elected officials.

    1. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

      It clearly demonstrates how fearful Boehner is of retaining his position that he would not immediately bring to the floor a bill as bipartisan and equitable as this one. It just becomes more apparent with every passing opportunity how entrenched the Republicans are in their hatred of Obama. To refuse such a bill is unconscionable and categorically unChristian.

    2. CPAinNewYork July 9, 2013

      If they’re worried about a backlash from their constiuents, doesn’t that mean that there are a significant number of voters who oppose immigration reform? I’m not too enthusiastic about any reform that gives a free pass to the 11 million that sneaked into this country.

      1. Dominick Vila July 10, 2013

        It means that there are many Congressmen from red districts where most people oppose immigration reform. That does not mean most Americans, at a national level, don’t support it.
        I don’t favor a pass to citizenship for people who violated our laws. I prefer legal status – something akin to a green card – that allows them permanent residency without becoming citizens.
        I do support citizenship status for those who were brought to this country as children. and were raised and educated in this country. Children should not be held responsible for crimes committed for their parents. Obviously, I also support citizenship for children born in the USA, consistent with the 14th Amendment, regardless of what their parents may have done.

  2. widollar July 2, 2013

    Given the badly broken political system wenow have in America, the financial masters who decide who gets elected as members of the GOP, will not allow their politicos to vote for anything that might help the middle class of America. Their mantra is anything that Obama wants, we are against that, including immigration reform.

  3. Michael Kollmorgen July 2, 2013

    Yes, we have a Divided Congress.

    But, even worse, are the voters of this country. We elect these people. We put these people in power. We send them to Washington knowing full well what their agendas are going to be, at least what they say they are going to try and do.

    You can’t blame a body of lawmakers for doing what the VOTER wants them to do. Congress is a direct reflection of America.

    IF Congress is divided, America itself is much worse. America is getting exactly what we deserve. America is a divided nation. And, as such, we can not stand. We can not exist as a nation much longer if this trend continues.

    1. Charles Evans July 2, 2013

      Well Said!

    2. Fern Woodfork July 2, 2013

      United We Will Stand, Divided They Will Fall!! They Are At Each Other Like The Hatfields And The McCoys!! I Hope They Take Each Other Out!!! The Sooner The Better!! Good Bye And Good Riddance!!! 🙂

      1. Michael Kollmorgen July 2, 2013

        Then basically what you are implying is that WE take each other out.

        This is what the end result will be.

        1. Fern Woodfork July 2, 2013

          I’m Say The GOP And The Tea Party Will Take Out Each Other Out!! We Dems, Indeps And The Greens Should Stay United!!!

          1. neeceoooo July 2, 2013

            I am with you on that, united we stand!

          2. Fern Woodfork July 2, 2013

            You Got That Right My Friend!! 🙂 We Stall Stay United And Rid This Country Of These Low Life, Lying, Stealing, Cheating, Gerrymandering Greedy Asshole Thugs By Voting Their Asses Out Of Offices All Over The USA!!!

          3. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            Yes, no compromise, no working things out, no common ground. The liberal way!

          4. Fern Woodfork July 2, 2013

            There’s No Working With Greedy Low Life Knuckle Dragging Terrorists!! We Try So Much In The Past So Now We Say Fuck The GOP/Tea Party American Taliban May All Of Them Slow Burn In Hell!!!!!!!! Now Peddle Your Bullshit Else Where!! Stop Talking To Me PLEASE!!!!!!

          5. idamag July 3, 2013

            Maybe you better research how long your legislator works a week. What he does with his spare time. Who his big backers are and what he has accomplished. Then instead of the old “you liberals” you will have some facts to present. I am against all political parties because they divide this nation and divided we fall. However when it comes to compromise, I think the Democrats compromise too much. As Bill Maher said, “The Republican Part is the party of mean and the Democratic party is the party of wimps.

          6. Michael Kollmorgen July 3, 2013

            Yea, I wonder now about Obama too. He just announced the delaying of Obamcare for another year.

            Man, I got to hand it to Democrats. When it comes to push and shove, they do very good at getting shoved in a corner and no backbone whatsoever to fight for progressive liberalism.

            Maybe this is true that Republicans “let” Democrats have power, just enough to give people the feeling they can actually make changes by voting for them.

            Seems like one is just as bad as the next.

          7. whodatbob July 5, 2013

            Michael, you could be correct about the Republicans, but I hope not. On Obama, after voting for him twice, I have come to the conclusion he is a highly intelligent, well educated spineless SOB. He has high minded ideas, gives great speeches, and has no follow through.

          8. Michael Kollmorgen July 5, 2013


            If the Republicans hadn’t of done all they could (since he got first elected) to limit his agendas (the peoples agenda really), he might have accomplished a lot more.

            But, I’ve never thought of him as a fighter. He might be totally right in his speeches, but he don’t show any fire in them. That’s his main downfall. Another Carter?

            And, honestly, it’s sort of late to expect him to do anything else. He’s got 3 more years to make something of himself in the office. At this point in time, the only legacy he is going to leave to the country is that he is the first black person elected for President.

            I’ll still take em over any Republican though. It’s one hell of a way to run a country.

          9. whodatbob July 6, 2013

            Yes, as bad a president Obama is in my opinion, he still is better then any Republican on the horizon.

          10. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

            Bear in mind that Obamacare was passed during a Lame Duck session of Congress. When (IF) Obama gets his House majority back next year and keeps the Senate, the people’s agenda will receive action, although, if you really think about, he has accomplished a great deal over the past five years, IN SPITE OF intense opposition.

          11. Michael Kollmorgen July 8, 2013

            Sad part about this all is that the good Obama is doing and has done is being largely overshadowed by all the news of obstruction the Republicans/Teabaggers are perpetrating against his administration. Of course, this is exactly what the intended purpose of it is.

            It’s sort of like the Needle in a Haystack analogy. The Needle, the good stuff, the Haystack, all the crap the Republicans/Teabaggers.

            The Democrats are going to pay hell trying to get a majority in the House and maybe keep the Senate.

            Keep your eye on 16 too. We still might get a Republican President. Other than Hillary, I don’t see a viable Democratic candidate.

          12. Michael Kollmorgen July 7, 2013

            Sorry, no more comprising. We Liberals, ever since Reagan, has been giving in to your demands for far too long.

            We’ll give you a foot and you’ll grab a mile.

            You Republican/Tebagger Taliban Terrorist’s days are numbered…………………….

    3. Bill Thompson July 2, 2013

      Michael what you say is true but the reason is gerrymandering . Until districts are drawn by computers representative democracy is lost. The fact of the matter is the Republicans are much better at this than the Democrats are and until there is a change in how districts are drawn Democrats will have a very hard time in the house and the senate for the foreseeable future.

      1. Michael Kollmorgen July 2, 2013

        You’re right.

        But, you’re also forgetting one slight detail. Humans have to program the computer. Garbage In – Garbage Out!

        1. latebloomingrandma July 2, 2013

          What would happen if you gave the computer only 3 parameters—number of districts, approximate population, and 4 straight sides to the district. I’d be curious for some computer geek to try it. Would we have more homogenous districts, so the extremes of either side wouldn’t be holding everyone else hostage?

          1. Michael Kollmorgen July 2, 2013

            I’m pretty sure they certainly could design a system that is totally fair for all concerned. That might work out very good IF you can keep corruption out of the process. To me, that would represent True Democracy at it’s finest.

            You know, we really can’t have that!

            Knowing how people can “fix” computers as Diebold did with their voting machines, I think year before last?, I don’t know if I’d trust em.

            It’s a good idea. But, an idea which may never be realized.

          2. S.J. Jolly July 2, 2013

            An alternative would be to abolish geographical districts altogether. Let voters assign their representation to individuals or organizations at large, like stockholders assign their proxies.

          3. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

            At large representation districts by definition deprive minorities of representation. This is an issue that is becoming obvious in many places around the country where some minority groups are suing to go back to district representation instead of at-large. County Commissions, City Councils, School Boards, etc. have tried to in the past go to at-large representation, only to realize (in some cases, happily) that their bodies have no minorities.

          4. S.J. Jolly July 9, 2013

            There would have to be some minimum number of proxies in a representative’s “bag” to get him or her a seat in the legislature. But, if the rep a voter selects fails to meet that criteria, the voter could switch to another rep, which would give minorities a better deal than they get now.

          5. idamag July 3, 2013

            Then they couldn’t cheat, could they?

          6. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

            Great idea. Looks like I am not going to be the only one to agree on this issue.

      2. 1standlastword July 3, 2013

        Poop! I very accidentally hit vote down after I voted you up Bill…sorry.

        I’d like to add what I think and that is the Reich Wingers are operating with a 1000 years Reich policy in their strategy.

        They might know (I say “might” because we can’t give them too much credit for having common foresight) that gerrymandered districts flip after about a decade or so.

        Given the aforementioned, engineering elections with the gerrymander gives the Reich a push towards changing the fabric of democracy while the added dimension of undermining the middleclass assures a permanent underclass that obviates the need for gerrymandering.

        I base this argument on an assumption that if our government made it easy for EVERYONE to vote and incentivized voting and EVERYBODY voted, “modern” republicans wouldn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell of winning…ever.

        Unfortunately, sad but true, underclass people don’t often use their right to vote so to the Reich in 1000 years of things going their way everyone but them and their “chillren” will be stupid and hand-to-mouth and then they will have succeed have succeeded in their plan to rule the country without challenge.
        I believe a healthy middle class is the lifeblood of a progressive democracy

        I also believe there is a distinct difference between humane conservatives and Reich Wingers.

    4. Lovefacts July 2, 2013

      Too true. This leads the problem of even when an elected official is disliked and has low poll numbers, the people re-elect the Republican to the House or Senate.

      Why? Because over the past 40 years they’ve been trained–and I do mean trained–to hate the anything and anyone Democratic. It’s a kneejerk reaction and gets re-enforced daily by talk radio and “Fox News”

      What’s also aided this are the short two day work weeks the Republican led House has in effect when they control the leadership. Until the 1990s when the Republicans regained control of the House, they worked Monday – Friday. Members of both parties fought like crazy on the floor, then would ate at one another’s homes, golf together, and attend the same parties.

      Why the two days and no socializing. Because, as Gingrich said, you can’t demonize someone you’ve faced across the dinner table, met at a social function, or know more than to nod at.

      1. idamag July 2, 2013

        Now, they work half days. They have a four day work week and fly home every week, supposedly to visit with their constituents.

        1. neeceoooo July 2, 2013

          None of my constituents have ever come to visit me, I even invited them over for dinner. I can’t even get them respond to letters or emails.

          1. charleo1 July 3, 2013

            Dinner sounds like free food. You know how us Liberals love
            our free food! You know what they say about a lonely politician?
            If you want a friend, buy a dog. But, if they are not picketing
            outside your office, you must be doing something right!

        2. Lovefacts July 2, 2013

          Actually, they work Tuesday, Wednesday, and half of Thursday only if called. Most leave Wednesday night. As for meeting with their constituents, mine–Congressman Goodlatte–he won’t meet with anyone unless they’re a big money donor. Call his office to talk with him, forget it. Town hall meetings, his staff shows up, except one closed, by invitation meeting. That’s why I’ve joined the Dump Goodlatte movement.

          1. idamag July 3, 2013

            There is a reason that Congress approval rating is only 10%

          2. charleo1 July 3, 2013

            I know. It means that thirty five million people, have no freakin’
            idea at all, there is a Washington D.C. With a Federal Govn’t
            located there. That has a Congress in it.

          3. plc97477 July 3, 2013

            Good luck with that. I wish you the best.

          4. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

            Virginia Foxx in North Carolina seems to bean exception. I don’t think she knows I am a Democrat, but I am on her mailing list. I do not agree with her on anything, but she has answered both letters I have sent to her.

          5. CPAinNewYork July 9, 2013

            So, what district does Goodlatte (Is that really his last name?) represent?

      2. latebloomingrandma July 2, 2013

        Gingrich—-he had a great deal to do with the partisanship and ugliness we have now.

        1. Lovefacts July 2, 2013

          Yeah, along with Dennis Hastert in the Congress and Lee Atwater with his Southern strategy during Reagan’s election. When dying from brain cancer, Atwater apologized for his actions and said that, having seen the horrible damage his actions have caused the country, he wished he had never followed that course.

          1. idamag July 3, 2013

            Don’t forget the Las Vegas gamer, billionaire, who actually got all the Republicans to sign his pledge. So who are they working for? Who owns your senator?

          2. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

            You will NEVER hear Carl Rove say that, and he has done so much more damage than Atwater.

          3. charleo1 July 7, 2013

            Rove trained under Atwater you know? I agree Rove did
            more damage. But he did have better equipment.

          4. DurdyDawg July 8, 2013

            Back up on that, friend.. Atwater only regretted his actions when he realized his imminent death thus put in a last good word to (hopefully) save his narrow ass in the hereafter.. Rove hasn’t reached that point yet.. Give the nut case a few more years and he too will cry foul but just like Atwater, a little too late to make a difference, only to give HIM peace.

          5. RobertCHastings July 8, 2013

            Whether either Atwater OR Rove had/have any desire to clear their consciences with us is irrelevant. As Goethe revealed in “Faust”, they only have to be okay with Him and, like Atwater and George Wallace demonstrated, that only needs to happen at the very end.

          6. CPAinNewYork July 9, 2013

            Rove isn’t a nutcase. he’s a bastard.

        2. Fern Woodfork July 2, 2013

          Maybe That’s The Reason He Love Visiting Zoos!! He Know He Started A Lot Of This Crap!! Hanging Out At The Zoos Is Not Going Make People Forget What He Done!! He Also Was At That Close Door Meeting Where The Pledge To Make Obama A One Term President!!! 🙁 Anybody That Vote For That Big Hog Head Wife Cheating Thug For President Needs Their Ass Whooped!!

          1. CPAinNewYork July 9, 2013

            God, what drivel you spout.

          2. Fern Woodfork July 9, 2013

            I See You Still Sucking Cocks, Pussy, And Assholes In New York= CPAinNewYork Huh??

          3. CPAinNewYork July 10, 2013

            You are without a doubt a profane clown.

          4. Fern Woodfork July 10, 2013

            Sound Like Your Mother You Asshole Troll!!

      3. Michael Kollmorgen July 3, 2013

        I believe our divided nation is reaching critical mass. It will blow up one of these days.

        I believe at the rate minorities are being disenfranchised from the voting booth and society in general, these people are going to be the trigger. The people who have the least to loose will be the ones to start it.

        Whitie and Token _ like Clarence Thomas better start watching their asses very carefully over the next 10 years or less.

    5. ChristoD July 2, 2013

      If we haven’t already, we better recognize that the Tea Party is all about having it EXACTLY as THEY want America, or else, let America go down the tubes. They are full of self righteous know nothings who believe that we are in immediate peril even though it was the conservative side of the isle that has created our current financial disaster. Boehner is a gutless NON-leader who has demonstrated that he is clueless, more interested in getting free golf dates and indulges in a tad too much hooch BUT, believe it or not, he is the better than the alternative, which would be a more radical right leadership. Thanks to their stubborn, unbending position, 2014 SHOULD see the Dems. taking back the House and HOPEFULLY hanging on to the Senate. If not, we are deep shit.

      1. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

        Actually Ms, it was the sub-prime mortgage crisis (see Bill Clinton) that most economists agree was the major cause of the financial meltdown. GW Bush tried to regulate in vain (see Maxine Watters, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd).
        You have plenty of meaningless opinions and blind devotion to the liberal way in one comment.

        1. ChristoD July 2, 2013

          Hmmm, talk about ‘meaningless opinions’, GreginPottsville. As usual right wing strategy is to change the subject and LIE. You did both very well. I was referring to the dramatic increase in the National Debt under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II (all of which was done with majorities in the House and Senate during the majority of their terms) which REAL experts CLEARLY indicated skyrocketed under these ‘fiscal conservatives’. This happened while pampering the ULTRA-rich with several tax breaks, a war based on lies spread by that illustrious war monger Cheney and a few other nefarious deeds of the ever empty suited Bush II. As for your HILARIOUS statement that Bush tried to ‘regulate in vain’ shows an utter clueless statement of the facts. Blaming Watters, Dodd and Frank is confusing at best. Oh, by the way, WTF does the following mean ? ‘You have plenty of meaningless opinions and blind devotion to the liberal way in one comment’. Ain’t no blind opinions here, these are FACTS and not part of the rights preferred ‘alternate reality’. Have you had your coffee yet or are you just a little short on the energy to the brain department this am ?

          1. idamag July 2, 2013

            And, also, Cheney was the former CEO of Halliburton. He had to divest his ties while he was vice president. I am sure they were held in abeyance until he left office. The strange thing was that Halliburton and subsidiaries were given no-bid contracts for that war in Iraq. Blackwater (subsidiary of Halliburton) was caught cheating the government numerous times and still continued to be on contract.

          2. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            So you believe her lie that Bush I and Reagan had majorities in the HOUSE AND SENATE for most of their terms? You libs really either can’t read or make things up or flat out lie, and support your fellow libs lies.

          3. idamag July 3, 2013

            I am not a liberal. I am against political parties. They stilt critical thinking, and they divide the nation. United we stand, divided we fall. If ever a group wanted to destroy our democracy, they could find willing allies in ideologues.

          4. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

            Washington and several other of the Founders feared the rise of partisan politics and deplored political parties. A two-party system is the least equitable of the possibilities for a multi-party Democracy, as evidenced by our current deadlock in Congress. The introduction of a third party (Ralph Nader or Ross Perot) has generally drained voters away from whoever would have won without a third party. Nader has cost Democrats at least one election. It is much better with several parties involved, none in the majority, having to form a consensus, which requires compromise from the more radical positions.

          5. CPAinNewYork July 9, 2013

            If you’re against political parties, your wasting your time, because political parties are how government works. George Washington tried to forestall their formation, but was unsuccessful, even afterr Jefferson and Hamilton promised him that they would eschew factions and partisan politics.

          6. Independent1 July 5, 2013
          7. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

            Under Reagan, the Gippers’s party DID control the Senate 6 out of 8 years and the House not at all. Under Bush I, the Republicans did not control either the House or the Senate for any time.
            However, under Bush II and Clinton, both the House and the Senate were under Republican control the majority of the time.

          8. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            Talk about lies, When did Bush I and Reagan have majorities in the House and Senate? as you write:

            “under Reagan, Bush I and Bush II (all of which was done with majorities in the House and Senate during the majority of their terms)”
            What part of what you wrote ISN’T a LIE?
            If you can’t understand my statement about Bush trying to regulate the housing market and Watters, Dodd and Frank stopping such, then I feel for you, because you really are clueless.

          9. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

            There is a very simple way to ascertain the truth of your assertions that the Bushes and Reagan did not operate with majorities in both houses of Congress. But, I don’t think you will like what you find.

          10. GreginPottsville July 8, 2013

            Yes, it is called facts, which I use.

          11. RobertCHastings July 8, 2013

            Democrats controlled both houses of Congress for most of the Reagan and Bush I administrations. However, the Republicans controlled both houses for most of the Clinton and Bush II years. Your “facts” were partly correct, but not completely.

          12. ChristoD July 7, 2013

            The part that I made a mistake on was who controlled the House and Senate during much of their administrations. My source was incorrect about that BUT, the real truth and what REALLY matters is that the National Debt sky rocketed under their administrations, is absolutely true. THAT is the part that I didn’t make a MISTAKE on and THAT is what really matters GreginPottsville. I anxiously look forward to your bait and switch attempt on THAT issue.

          13. GreginPottsville July 8, 2013

            Well I appreciate finally a liberal admits to a mistake. I give you credit for that.

            I feel sorry that you “anxiously look forward” to anything from a comment section. Your life cannot possibly be that freaking boring.

            Speaking of your “source” that was incorrect, I wonder how much other propaganda you got from that “source”. You may be more mislead than even I thought.

            I will give you a little help. See what the national debt was on January 20, 2009. See what it is today, July 8, 2013. Subtract the bigger # from the smaller # and you will get the increase during the Obama administration. Compare that to the Presidents you hate and get back to me. Keep in mind, Obama’s # covers merely 4 1/2 years!

          14. ChristoD July 8, 2013

            The ultimate in hilarious absurdity is a Republican commenting on a Democrat about admitting a mistake. The mantra for Karl ‘the Weasel’ Rove was, is and ever shall be: ‘NEVER admit a mistake and blame the Democrats for EVERYTHING even when it is our (Republicans) fault’. As for your additional hilarious comment about my life being boring because I ‘anxiously look forward’ to your response is EXACTLY what I would expect from an empty headed Republican, an insult. By the way, my ‘source’ was an independent ‘consultant’ that I discovered when I looked on the internet for an ‘independent’ source to ‘determine the facts’. Propaganda ? Your hilarious absurdity continues. If you want one hour every night of the week look to none other than that pillar of empty suits, Shaun Hannity on FAUX news, that additional pillar of Republican empty suits.

          15. GreginPottsville July 8, 2013

            Wait, you need an independent “consultant” to determine who had majorities in Congress during the Reagan and both Bush administrations? You don’t know that but yet you can come up with an irrelevant Karl Rove quote said in jest as something of importance? Amazing! Now THAT is absurdly hilarious.

          16. ChristoD July 8, 2013

            The key word here is INDEPENDENT (from prejudice) information. I suspect that would never be able to put your bright RED brain around that concept. Lemmings are like that, as I am sure you know since you so aptly are portraying one. IRRELAVENT Karl Rove quote ? You have got to be Rip Van Winkle or a FAUX Republican….THAT quote/mantra is what DROVE the entire agenda under Empty Suit Bush and you call it IRRELAVENT ? You are without a doubt, clueless. I suspect that you simply are on this site to poke and annoy. You bore me. Go bother someone else.

          17. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

            Unfortunately, you are wrong about who controlled Congress when. Check your data. I could not agree with you more about the rest of your post.

        2. Jim Myers July 2, 2013

          As with most on the “Conservative” right, you seem to forget, or ignore, the words of your famous VP, DICK Cheney.

          “Ronald Reagan taught us that deficits don’t matter.”

          Except when there is a Democrat in the White House.

          1. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            I never agreed with that statement. Did you?

        3. Sand_Cat July 2, 2013

          Yeah, right, genius. We already know that Barney Frank, Chris, Dodd, and Ted Kennedy were the sole causes of George Bush’s economic meltdown. One of your fellow troll-cretins already pointed out that something Barney Frank said in 2005 – while his party had minorities in both houses – triggered the whole thing. Keep smoking: all those hallucinations and delusions must feel good.

          1. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            You can only lead a horse to water…Believe what you want, and stay in the dark. That is how Obama won re-election. He got the most un-informed voters like yourself in history.

          2. idamag July 3, 2013

            Since you graduated summa cum laude from Harvard we should listen to you – right?

          3. GreginPottsville July 3, 2013

            You are the one that presented lies as facts. One needs only a 2nd grade education to determine lies are not facts.

          4. Sand_Cat July 4, 2013

            On the contrary, idiot, the facts are that “conservatives” do best where ignorance is high, and that isn’t made up like your “facts.”

          5. idamag July 3, 2013

            I hope he is honest enough not to accept Medicare as that bill was Ted Kennedy and Orville Hatch (R)..

        4. charleo1 July 3, 2013

          Actually, the more that is learned about the collateralized
          debt, and the resultant housing bubble. the more obvious
          it becomes it was a preconceived, intentional scam from
          the get go. Right down to buying off the rating agencies,
          to receive their meaningless triple, “A” credentials. Even
          the former Congressman Phil Graham, knew which current
          Congressman to contact to introduce the little con game.
          None other than that bastion of fiscal integrity, John McCain.
          That almost had his career ended with the Keating Five
          scandal. Which he was in, up to his, red, white, and blurry, eyeballs. But you just keep peddling that BS to ever will
          listen. You didn’t make money on the deal. In fact, like most
          people in this Country, you probably lost money. I mean,
          in good cons, and slick schemes, like this one. A few walk off with everyone else’s money. But, the Marks don’t usually go
          around defending the cons. That makes you special.

          1. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

            When Glass-Steagal was repealed in1999, the regulations that helped us to avoid another Great Depression were erased from the books. Within 8 years of the demise of GS, the US faced its worst Recession since the Great Depression, and the world fell with us. Glass-Steagal was signed into law in 1933 to escape the rampant speculation brought on by unfettered greed that resulted in the Great Depression. Regardless of who signed the law that eliminated this regulatory web, the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress in 1999 while Bill Clinton was president, and its demise brought about, once again, unfettered and unregulated speculation.

          2. charleo1 July 7, 2013

            Yes! That is the unfettered truth. They have their own story,
            of course. To which I say to them, I don’t blame them for making up a story. If I screwed up that bad, I would probably make up a story that completely exonerated me too! I usually try to catch The Daily Show, on Comedy Central. They did a short skit the other day on Canadian Banks, which are highly regulated. And as such, they still function as banks there. They interview an elected politician, and he was quite proud of their side stepping all the destruction that befell the U.S. Banking System. He did say some Canadian Bankers tried to put the sale on them. And, then he said something that was really quite remarkable. He clearly didn’t see it as such. But, boy I sure did! He said, we told them no. They also ask passersby their impression of bankers. In Canada, they said things like, (and, I’m not making this up,) trustworthy, honest, friendly. Of course, they asked in New York. And got the answers you would guess. Crooks, criminals, liars, thieves. And people are absolutely entitled to be mad. Some are however, mad at the wrong people for reasons that have
            nothing to do with how the economy got blown up.
            True story: A while back, during the worst of it. A fellow told
            me, I was totally wrong blaming Wall Street. No you’re wrong,
            he says. The blame lies with poor people! Yes Sir! He says, poor people shop at Walmart, and Walmart pays crappy wages, which creates more poor people. That’s one of those stories I was talking about. It’s never Walmart, or Wall Street.

    6. midway54 July 2, 2013

      “You can’t blame a body of lawmakers for doing what the VOTER wants them to do. Congress is a direct reflection of America.”

      But consider those increasing instances in which the politicians just ignore what the citizenry obviously wants according to polls (think gun control,or leave medicare and social security alone…off the negotiating table, to name just a couple of items). Moreover, a great majority of Americans do not want still another war to begin. We will need to see what happens to that.

    7. S.J. Jolly July 2, 2013

      “We can not exist as a nation much longer if this trend continues.” You underestimate the power of political inertia, overestimate the importance of the dispute to most US citizens. The present situation is akin to a family dinner table argument: Unpleasant, but not grounds to split the family. The time to really worry is when guns, knives, and other weapons start being brandished.

      1. Michael Kollmorgen July 3, 2013

        Yea, political inertia dam near got in a real nutcase in for President the last time. If that was possible, anything is.

    8. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

      Under normal circumstances, I would agree with you. Yes, we did elect these people (well, not me) and we all did so with the best of intentions. However, as time goes on and a small group of Tea Party legislators hold the entire House hostage, in many cases in direct opposition to what their constituents actually are asking them to do, it is becoming clear that a rogue few are controlling this country’s future.

  4. Catskinner July 2, 2013

    The one gaping omission in the Senate bill is the total lack of any attempt to deal with the Anchor Baby problem. If Congress passes a guest worker program, for instance, without dealing with the Anchor Baby issue, as soon as a woman has a child on American soil, the baby will be a US citizen, and the tax payers will be on the hook to support the entire family for 18 years.
    This same issue comes into play with Schumer’s insistence that illegal aliens will be barred from accessing social benefits. Their children, the ones born here anyway, will suffer no such barrier. So if the child qualifies for rent subsidies, are we to assume the rest of the family will not move in with the child?
    And all of that does not take into account the disaster of the Earned Income Tax Credit. These people will be a net drain on the treasury out of the gate.
    This bill needs to be stopped, and stopped now.

    1. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

      Not to mention, there will be no securing the border in place before documentation takes place. You make too much sense and are going to get hammered by the liberals here. Wait until you see all the hate you are gonna get real soon.

      1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

        Yeah, I know, Greg. It’s a tough job but somebody’s got to do it.

      2. CJR July 2, 2013

        Papers, please. Show me your papers, or we will have to deport you.

        1. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

          I would happily show my papers. So would my wife, who grew up in a country where papers were needed to be on her at all times. She can’t understand why it is such a big deal. Neither can I. Can you explain why it is such a big deal to you?

          1. TheSkalawag929 July 2, 2013

            It’s simple you shmuck. In the land of the Free you don’t need papers or permission to move around the country. That is one of the principals this country was founded on.
            I’ll bet your wife is glad that she doesn’t have to worry about having her papers on her all the time. She may understand the requirement but I bet she is happy she no longer has to fulfill it.

          2. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            Actually, she did everything legally to be here and would be happy to carry papers if it helps solve the illegal immigration problem. She never once told me she is glad she doesn’t have to worry about papers. Sorry, you lost this one. But your name calling is funny.

          3. WhutHeSaid July 2, 2013

            Well, I’m sure that she believes that US citizenship is almost worth it. Marrying you, I mean. Good luck with that.

          4. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            Now you will really be confused. My wife is not a US citizen. And we have been married a decade.

          5. WhutHeSaid July 2, 2013

            Nah, I’m not confused. Or surprised. It’s amazing how much patience some women have. That’s what I tell her every time she calls.

          6. GreginPottsville July 3, 2013

            Typical liberal you are. You lose an argument, you do the personal attacks. I had one other liberal commenter here wishing I would die. So you are not THE meanest most intolerant liberal here. Maybe the second most.

          7. WhutHeSaid July 3, 2013

            What was the argument that I lost?

          8. TheSkalawag929 July 2, 2013

            No one questioned whether or not she came here legally Shmuck. However her mentality might be called into question since she married you.
            I’ll bet it never once came up in a conversation whether or not she is glad she doesn’t have to deal with the hassle of carrying ID papers or not. I’ll also bet that if someone asked her for ID papers it would bring up some bad memories for her. I didn’t lose. And I’m pleased that you like my nickname for you. I think it’s quite fitting.

      3. Sand_Cat July 2, 2013

        Yes, you’re “right.” Most people here don’t care for liars and bigots. If you want to call that “hate,” go ahead, but most people can recognize projection when they see it.

        1. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

          I suppose if the facts don’t fit your agenda, you call them lies for some reason.

          1. metrognome3830 July 2, 2013

            So far, you haven’t presented any “facts” GreginPottsville. Your opinions and the opinions of like “conservatives” (to be polite) are not facts.

    2. Michael Kollmorgen July 2, 2013

      I’ve always thought an illegal who has a child born here shouldn’t have automatic citizenship bestowed upon it.

      But, I don’t believe “this” issue is a major concern though. We need to curb the need for undocumented cheap laborers.

      If I had my way, I’d put a fence up 50ft. high across the entire southern border and have heat sensing mini-mags ever few hundred feet ready to take out anyone that goes over the border. And, have vibration sensors for tunneling that try to go under it. If our Military has that technology, they could apply that technology just as effectively guarding our border.

      Simple fact is, it will never be solved. There are greedy people/corporations here who make a huge profit off cheap illegal labor. And, its not only in the southwestern states. It’s all across this country.

      1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

        It’s a lot bigger problem that one originally thinks, Michael. When the government talks about numbers of illegal aliens the children born on this side of the border aren’t counted, because the way things are being interpreted now, technically they aren’t illegal.
        If you want to know the more insidious side of it, Google “Birth Tourism.”

        1. Michael Kollmorgen July 2, 2013

          From what I’ve always understood, ANY baby that is born on US Soil or US Territory, Army/Naval Base is automatically an american citizen.

          This Anchor Baby problem is not only from Illegals crossing over from Mexico either. Yea, I read your google results, everyone should.

          Thanks for the tip……..

          1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

            Yes, you’re right about the way the 14th Amendment is being interpreted now, Michael. That’s the problem. There are three proposed bills in the House right now to change that, but nothing was included in the Senate bill.

        2. Jim Myers July 2, 2013

          There is nothing “Technical” about it.

          See my response to you in my previous statement.

          1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

            – ? –

      2. idamag July 2, 2013

        And those greedy corporations can call a coyote and order x amount of workers. Tyson Foods was cited for that very thing.

      3. Allan Richardson July 2, 2013

        They not only profit from cheap illegal labor, they profit from the hatred which they implant into the minds of American WORKERS, to keep the problem from being fixed. If we started deporting the CEO’s who HIRE illegal aliens (oops, they are mostly American citizens; I guess we will have to “deport” them to prison) instead of the workers themselves, the problem would be halfway solved.

    3. CJR July 2, 2013

      Many anchor babies have been deported with their families.
      The anchor babies have the RIGHT to stay in the US, but the families CHOOSE to keep their children with them when deported.
      But the US citizen anchor babies can cross the border at will.

      1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

        That’s exactly right, CJR. That’s what Birth-Tourism is all about. Once the Anchor Baby has acheived citizenship, he/she can come back at any time. And upon reaching the age of 18, the AB can send for the rest of the family.

        1. awakenaustin July 2, 2013

          You are simply wrong. Birth-tourism is not the anchor baby issue. It involves mostly wealthy oriental families and is a phenomenon and not a problem, epidemic or likely to extend beyond “wealthy” people with the financial ability to undertake it. (It isn’t a problem unless your problem is more “non-whites” in the nation.)

          Your idea is that lots of poor, and poorly-educated women and men have enough knowledge of the immigration laws and citizenship laws to plan to sneak across the border (pregnant?) not simply to get better paying jobs, but rather to have their baby here to take advantage of a law which doesn’t exist in the fashion you suggest it exists. No one whose only connection to this nation is to have been born here gets to automatically be a citizen or to automatically bring or keep his or her family here.

          You are simply wrong about how the law works on this issue. What you imagine the world to be like isn’t a description of what it is actually like.

          1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

            Birth Tourism and the Anchor Baby problem work off that same provision in the 14th amendment that is being misinterpreted now. They are exssentially the same thing.
            Why would you think poorly educated women wouldn’t know about th advantages of having their baby on the American side of the border? It’s been going on for decades. Give them a little credit.

          2. WhutHeSaid July 2, 2013

            It’s not anchor babies or birth tourists that puzzle me — it’s those fat and lazy Tea Bigots. I’m not sure where they’re from, but I never could figure out how they got something that big through a trailer door that small..

    4. charleo1 July 2, 2013

      The nonpartisan, Congressional Budget Office, does not agree with you.
      Perhaps they didn’t add in your preconceived, negative stereotyping of
      Hispanics, and Latino’s as inherently lazy? And therefore, flawed human
      beings. Unworthy of laws being passed to stop their exploitation at the hands
      of the American businesses, that hire them? The CBO found their presence
      as a part of the legal workforce, would result in a 4/4.5% increase in the
      GNP of the Country, in the first decade. An additional 732 billion dollars per
      year, would certainly seem to more than offset a rent subsidy here or there.
      (Based on total U.S. economic output of 18 trillion) But I think there is more going on here, than the worry about the possibility that the government might have to extend it’s social safety net. It seems to me, among those Americans
      who habitat in Right Wing political circles. They are far more opposed to the
      the increase in the number of voters that would be added to the Democratic
      Party. So, although there are those in the GOP, those that used to run the
      GOP, are pleading with the ideological dead enders, that have hijacked the
      GOP. To find some way, for the sake of extending their political relevance beyond 2020, to support an immigration bill of some kind. I believe the T-
      Party, or whatever they may decide to call themselves. (Palin suggested the
      Freedom Party.) Is quietly letting Speaker Boehner, and other Party leaders,
      know. They didn’t come to support the GOP. They came to end it.

      1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

        And, of course, the CBO operates on a series of assumptions that Senator Schumer’s staff hands to them, so…

        1. Sand_Cat July 2, 2013

          And what do you operate on, alcohol, or hallucinogens?

          1. Fern Woodfork July 2, 2013

            Both!! I Believe That’s lana ward You Know Anal Draw You Can Tell By The Name!! Talking The Same Bullshit!! My Guess Is She Hides Behind All These Different IDs Cause She Ass Can’t Face That All Those So Called Scandal Blew Back Up In Her No Good Ass GOP/Tea Party Faces!! LOL What You Bet She Got 3,333 Cat She’s Hoarding By Now !!! LOL

          2. idamag July 3, 2013

            Lana wasn’t that articulate and catskinner is not very articulate.

          3. Fern Woodfork July 3, 2013

            You Got Right My Friend!! 🙂 And They Both Are Full Of Shit!!

          4. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            I guess you can’t handle the truth, as usual, so you try to denigrate the person who knows the truth.

          5. Jon Savage July 2, 2013

            oh because you say its true it is???? talk about pot calling kettle black

          6. metrognome3830 July 2, 2013

            Well then Sand_Cat is obviously not denigrating you.

          7. metrognome3830 July 2, 2013

            No, Catskinner is a Green Party guy. He operates on pure bullshit.

        2. charleo1 July 3, 2013

          Where do you look for truth? Louie Gomert? It’s so obvious,
          when the truth, or facts contradicts the propaganda, someone is always corrupting the numbers. It’s always a Left Wing plot. During the entire election year, when the numbers revealed an improving economy. Obama, and his henchmen were always controlling the numbers. Until it could no longer
          be credibly denied. Then, it was simply dropped, without comment, or explanation, from the daily dose of perfectly placed, misinformation. And other subjects, where the facts were less obvious were taken up. But the volume of misdirection never wavered. Just like your ready made, conversation stopper. Chuck Schumer’s staff gave the CBO the stats. So, It’s all a lie. You didn’t come to know this this on your own. It was fed to you. And you gratefully consumed it. Without ever checking it’s veracity, Because you are beyond caring if the tidbit is the truth, or a fabrication. It supports what you want to believe, and that is all that is necessary. Like climate change. 97% of the science says it’s real, and man made. But the 3%, that disagree, are the ones telling
          the truth. This always being able to believe exactly what one prefers, is as addictive as heroin. I would remind you, and those propagandists that control the message to the Right Wing faithful. There is a real world out there. with real facts. And convincing the followers of the Republican Party line, that they are Left Wing lies, and plots. Or, that they don’t exist, does not cause them to evaporate into thin air. They are as real before their dismissal as Leftist heresy, as they are after. And the consequences for continually ignoring, and denying the truth, are often very harsh indeed. For what are people to eventually think of an organization, that would allow such serious matters to harm the Nation, for the temporary political gain, purchased with a convenient lie?

          1. Catskinner July 3, 2013

            I would only refer you, charleo, to the original CBO estimates for Obamacare. There numbers have doubled since then and they’re still going up. A legislator can get the numbers he/she wants from the CBO–it’s simply a matter of garbage-in-garbage-out.

          2. charleo1 July 3, 2013

            The only thing still going up about ObamaCare, is the
            rhetoric coming out of a Right Wing, that cares less for
            the actual facts, the more radical they become. The for
            profit insurance companies still must justify their premiums
            increases with actual care. Not by their monopolizing the
            market, as they have been. The government is going to
            need to set in place a price structure, based on the cost
            of providing the service. And not based on the price one
            insurance company just paid, to buy out the competition.
            And now must capitalize on their cornering of the market
            share. Because some asshole CEO got a little too drunk,
            and overpaid on the buyout. Don’t think it happens? To
            claim, as the current crop of GOP is. That selling more
            product is going to lead to higher prices. Is like WalMart
            saying, since the government is requiring people that
            don’t have widgets, to come to our stores and buy one.
            Instead of getting them at the highest prices around,
            in these emergency widget rooms. The overall cost of widgets is going to skyrocket. It makes no sense for them
            to even oppose ACA. Because it is their market based solution, using for profit providers, throughout the entire delivery system. I know, they want to oppose all solutions
            until people without the means to pay for healthcare, die
            in the freakin’ street. Little kids, and all. And for that, they
            can kiss my bleeding heart liberal ass.

          3. Catskinner July 3, 2013

            You need to do a little research, charleo. The bill is so unpopular they just suspended part of it until after the 2014 elections, and it has to do with everyone’s costs going up.

          4. charleo1 July 3, 2013

            Actually, it has to do with businesses with over 50 employees.
            And Republican obstructionism, from attempting to defund it’s
            implementation, and Republican run States refusing to accept
            Federal monies to expand their Medicaid program. That does
            automatically effect the information reported as to the status of
            these companies’ compliance with ACA rules. The remainder of the healthcare law, goes forward, Including the individual
            mandate. What is it with these Republicans? They didn’t pass
            the law. So they don’t feel they must follow the law?

          5. Catskinner July 3, 2013

            Actually, charleo, the Republicans were force to eat the law, but I”m not a Republican. I’m just one of the many independents who oppose it.

          6. charleo1 July 3, 2013

            Eat, follow, You can describe any law, as forcing people who
            disagree with the law, as making them eat it. It’s another way
            to say forced it down the throat, and so on. Drunks have had
            tougher DUI laws forced down their throat. I think it’s ridiculous,
            we’re the only country with indoor plumbing, that doesn’t have
            a National Health Policy, that manages to cover all their citizens. And do it at about 1/3 the cost of what we spend.
            You may oppose it. But to do so, while covered by health
            insurance, may be because they see nothing in it for themselves. Which simply means their health insurance
            hasn’t gone beyond their present ability to afford it, yet.

          7. Catskinner July 3, 2013

            Charleo: I can see that we’re not going to agree. I really do think the Affordable Care Act has forced both medical costs and insurance premiums up. The last I heard, America had the highest medical costs in the world–especially drug costs. I think the law made things worse, but…

          8. angelsinca July 4, 2013

            “it has to do with everyone’s costs going up.”

            or, the next election cycle.

          9. Catskinner July 4, 2013

            You’re right, angelsinca. If everyone’s costs go up, the only votes the Democrats would get would be from people without costs–i.e. welfare recipients.

          10. Catskinner July 3, 2013

            I think you’re right about the insurance companies, charleo, which is why many of us questioned the administration’s insistence on going through insurance companies in the first place. But then, to make it even weirder, Democrat controlled states like Washington and California are moving to eliminate the competition, so the people can only go to the insurance company their state government picks out for them.

    5. LaRae Bailey July 2, 2013

      these illegals have been using the welfare system openly for years and our govt has all kinds of information out there welcoming them to apply. they have not been arresting them, deporting them or anything else since obama took office and he gave the orders to leave them alone

      1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

        Ten-Four, LeRae…

        1. Sand_Cat July 2, 2013

          Yeah, not surprising you buy into LaRae’s rants. Try checking back a bit at her claims the UN is coming for her (and your?) guns and other insane delusions.

        2. metrognome3830 July 2, 2013

          Oh, you believe LaRae, do you? The fact is, under Obama, there has been an increase in deportations and an increase in border patrol personnel. I guess everyone else lies and only LaRae knows the truth. Or something. Or maybe LaRae doesn’t know anything. Who knows? Do you? All you know is that LaRae agrees with you.

          1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

            There has been an increase in the numbers of people who’ve been scheduled to be deported. There seems to be some question if they’ve actually been physically deported.

          2. metrognome3830 July 2, 2013

            That depends on who is asking the question. Glenn Beck, for instance? Doesn’t mean a thing.

    6. awakenaustin July 2, 2013

      Not an omission, there isn’t an anchor baby problem, just like there isn’t a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy burglary problem. Maybe you should bother yourself to read an actual scholarly article on the process of claiming citizenship and the protections or lack of protections provided by the fact of merely being born here or related to someone born here. Anchor babies have as much substance as “death panels” and the notion that the Twin Towers (9/11) was an inside job.
      You fellows might get some traction, if you didn’t make such outlandish, hyperbolic, over the top, wildly exaggerated, and unsubstantiated claims.
      Fortunately, as soon as you open your mouth, everyone knows some silliness is going to come roaring out. It is like listening Sarah Palin, you know that soon there will come that eye-rolling, head shaking event. She can’t help it and neither can you.

      1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

        Take off your tin-foil hat, AA, you’re out in space on this one. Why do you think so many pregnent mothers are raced across the border to have their babies on the American side? And why do you think so many border area hospitals have had to cut back on services? And what do you think Obama’s fake dream act was all about?
        Better check you facts before you make an even bigger fool of yourself.

        1. Sand_Cat July 2, 2013

          Well, at least you don’t have to worry about making a bigger fool of yourself.

          1. plc97477 July 3, 2013

            Don’t think S/he can top that one. Don’t hold your breath.

    7. Jim Myers July 2, 2013

      Dealing with Anchor Babies is really a conundrum for the so called “Conservatives.”

      On the one hand, strict adherence to Constitutional matters is paramount.

      Except, that in the matter of
      “Anchor Babies.”

      They are protected under Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution.

      And although the Constitution does not define “Natural Born Citizen,” a 2011 Congressional Research Service report stated that the term “Natural Born Citizen” would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. Citizenship “by birth” or “at birth”, either being born “in” the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents. Or born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents.

      So, what to do? Adhere to the Constitution, or re-write the Constitution? Or, just re-write this one tiny part of the Constitution.

      Never mind those “Conservatives” who wanted to amend the Constitution in order to allow Governor Schwarzenegger to run for the Presidency, when he was the “Golden Boy” of the Republican Party.

      My, how things have changed.

      1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

        Actually, nothing has really changed, Jim. And while I’m not a conservative–I come at this from a “Green” perspective–the bills that are in the House now rely on the wording of the 14th Amendment.

        First, it’s important to realize that this portion of the 14th Amendment was written after the Civil War and it was intended as a measure to prevent white southerners from trying to deny citizenship to children of former slaves. It states–paraphrasing–that children born to persons residing in the United States and under the jurisdiction of the US government shall not be denied citizenship.

        The argument is, illegal aliens are not under the jurisdiction of the government, because the government doesn’t even know they are here.

        1. metrognome3830 July 2, 2013

          If persons reside in the United States then they are under the jurisdiction of the United States. It’s not their problem that the United States doesn’t keep track of them. Technically, only children born to foreign diplomatic personnel would be disqualified according to your reasoning.

          1. Catskinner July 2, 2013

            It’s not my reasoning. It’s the reasoning of the folks who wrote the bill.

          2. metrognome3830 July 2, 2013

            No, that’s your interpretation of what their reasoning was.

  5. Stars Pets July 2, 2013

    Rethuglicans are committing political suicide by being so obstuctionist. They will get what they deserve in 2014 and 2016. There can’t can’t ignorance in sufficient quantity to reelect these idiots.

    1. Michael Kollmorgen July 2, 2013

      I wouldn’t put a bet on that.

  6. tax payer July 2, 2013

    It’s going into the toilet for sure.

  7. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

    It’s amazing you cannot find the big story on this site about student loan interest rates doubling due to Democrats. Amazing. Nothing to see here.

    1. CJR July 2, 2013

      So, the GOP has ABSOLUTELY NO POWER?
      That’s funny!

      1. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

        The bill was passed in 2007. I think both houses were controlled by Democrats. The bill was designed for the halving of the interest rates to expire right before the 2012 elections. They extended it 1 year (kicked the can down the road). Do you want to know why the Democrats aren’t eager to cut the interest rates now? They need the $$$ for Obamacare. Amazing none of this big news can be found here. Nothing to see here!

        1. CJR July 2, 2013

          Altering the student loan rate is a spending bill. Therefore, by the Constitution, the bill has to be passed by the House of Representatives, first.
          By the Hastert Rule, the House GOP must be able to pass a student loan reduction bill with majority GOP support.
          They cannot.
          The Senate has held hearings, and has a number of bills to act on. Unfortunately, due to this silly Constitution thing, they have to wait for the House to get off their behinds and pass SOMETHING.
          Who controls the House?

          1. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            Who passed the bill to make the interest rates double “intentionally” for political reasons?

          2. awakenaustin July 2, 2013

            He served you on the first issue, so now you shift tactics and your complaint.

          3. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            I think you have it backwards. I do know liberals love to cherry pick and ignore the rest, so I understand your mis-comprehension.

          4. awakenaustin July 2, 2013

            You may think what you wish to think. It doesn’t make it true because you think it.

          5. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            I deal in truth. You can live in your bubble.

          6. awakenaustin July 2, 2013

            I am sure you “think” you deal in truth. Unfortunately, everything you have offered here is an opinion, unsupported by any reference to fact.

          7. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            Actually, most of what I typed are “Facts”. You may want to see what your fellow liberals comments are. Lots of name calling, put downs, vile opinions, and lies.

          8. awakenaustin July 2, 2013

            When you recite facts you should recite accurate facts. Inaccurate facts only support the inaccuracy of your opinion.

            In 2007 both houses of Congress were controlled by Republicans. A simple search on Google will show that. By your logic that makes it a Republican stratagem and not one by the Democrats. You did not state when it was extended by one year, but I bet it was in 2012. I could look it up, but I bet I don’t need to. This means of course that one house of Congress, the House was controlled by the Republicans and the Democrats had a thin and not filibuster proof majority in the Senate. Which, of course, makes all of your claims about Democratic scheming equine fecal material.

            So much for your facts.

            Your suppositions about Democratic thinking on these matters are suppositions/opinions/guesses unsupported by facts!

          9. metrognome3830 July 2, 2013

            That’s good ‘ol Greg for ya! He knows the facts he parrots because he and his right wing buddies made them up.

          10. Sand_Cat July 2, 2013

            Who is an idiot who can only parrot Fox talking points?

          11. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

            I come up with facts, you come up with name calling. I guess next you will start on personal attacks. I do understand how the losing liberal operates.

          12. metrognome3830 July 2, 2013

            Take heart, Greg! There is hope that Sarah Palin will take control of the Tea Party and split off from the real Republican party. Then you will have an advocate. Of course, all the people hoping she does that are Democrats and moderate Republicans.

    2. charleo1 July 2, 2013

      Sorry. To find a story blaming Democrats for the increase in student loans,
      you’re probably going to need to go to Drudge, or Britebart, Red State, or Fox. That’s actually a little smellier than Fox likes to put through it’s huge bullhorn. Until, they can get Bachmann or one of the T-Baggers, Mike Lee, or Ted Cruz to spread the lie. But, a bigger problem selling this lie. Is the consumers are
      students. And, not some South Georgia, Red Neck, that quit school in the 6th grade, to devote more of his time to cooking meth.

      1. GreginPottsville July 2, 2013

        You probably had no clue Democrats are ultimately behind the rise in interest rates. I am glad to have helped you out. You certainly won’t find it here, on the ultra-left wing site. Even USA Today, a liberal paper, had the story on the front page.

  8. disqus_ivSI3ByGmh July 2, 2013

    You really cannot blame Denny Hastert for that policy of only bringing bills forward guaranteed to pass on Republican votes alone. Hastert wasn’t smart enough for that to come out of his mediocre capabilities. He had that policy directed to him by his master, Tom DeLay.

  9. idamag July 2, 2013

    There was a country that had a democracy that was a model for other countries to follow. Along came a mad man and convinced them that they had a common enemy. It is called divide and conquer. People are easy to get to choose up sides to fight each other while the enemy steps in and takes the government.

  10. S.J. Jolly July 2, 2013

    Very likely, the only thing that will save the Republican Party, in the USA and in many states, is to get the Tea Party radicals and the hard-conservative Republicans to split off into a new party. Call it the “American Conservative Party,” perhaps. Let the moderate remainder of the GOP get back to being a rational alternative to the Democrats.

  11. Pamby50 July 2, 2013

    I read an article by Eugene Robinson today. He said, “Leading the House Republican majority is like trying to get a bunch of cats to do synchronized swimming.” Boehner should just bring up the senate bill and let the democrats with a hand full of republicans pass the bill. It could be a win-win. Immigration reform gets passes and John Boehner gets tossed out.

  12. howa4x July 4, 2013

    This what happen when Pandora opened the box. She unleashed forces outside her control. The GOP opened the tea party box and rode those forces to victory in 2010. Now they see that those forces have a darker side, one that the mass of the electorate reviles. They have also seen that anyone tainted with this darkness has no chance of obtaining national office a the highest level, but the problem is that these forces have infected the nominating process. Now anyone thinking of running for president must run a gauntlet controlled by these forces, and must adopt all the negative energy they have if they want to pass by. Now they control a large enough part of the house that they can block any republican attempt to bypass them. So how dose it feel now GOP after you’ve really seen what is in the box?

    1. angelsinca July 4, 2013

      “So how dose it feel now GOP after you’ve really seen what is in the box?”

      Compared to the shadowy revelations that have escaped from the WH, truthfully refreshing.

  13. Catskinner July 4, 2013

    Comprehensive Immigration Reform is the worst idea since Obamacare. The country is finished if the House lets it pass.

  14. RobertCHastings July 7, 2013

    The Senate bill that will be sent to the House includes most everything the Republicans in the Senate wanted, including how many thousand more border patrol agents and $20B to be spent on completing the Bush wall. The simple fact that 14 Republicans in the Senate broke ranks says how bipartisan the agreement was. However, as Boehner has said, it is dead on arrival in the House because of the Hastert Rule which requires the support of a majority of Republicans to support the bill before it even hits the floor, regardless of the ineffable fact that enough Republicans in the House will support it to, along with the Democrats who will support it, to pass the bill without even going to reconciliation.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.