After 18 months Rep. Darrell Issa finally releases his report which finds, hold on for a shocker folks, NO connection between the White House and the IRS "scandal." What?

Courtesy of the LA Times:  

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Vista) wasted enormous congressional resources over the last 18 months trying to inflate the IRS "scandal" into a mountain. The release Tuesday of his final, petulant report on the affair marks what may be its final decline into a mouse. 

The bottom line: Contrary to his assertions in countless appearances on Fox News, there's no evidence that the Obama White House directed -- or indeed was involved in any way -- in the supposed targeting of conservative nonprofit groups for special scrutiny by the IRS. There's no evidence that "tea party" groups were exclusively targeted, as opposed to tax-exempt "social welfare" organizations from across the political spectrum. 

The evidence set forth in the report, which was issued by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform's GOP majority without sharing it first with the Democratic minority, instead depicts an IRS struggling to apply complicated rules for nonprofits engaging in political activity, all without guidance from Congress. 

Issa launched his investigation last spring with the charge that the IRS had screened c-4 applications for words such as "tea party" in their names in an effort to deprive conservative organizations of a tax exemption.

Of course that turned out to be bullshit as the report  reveals that the IRS also applied scrutiny to various liberal groups seeking the c-4 exemption as one of the keywords they were looking for was "progressive."

In fact the ONLY group applying for the exemption, who did not receive it, was a group called Emerge America, which trains Democratic women to run for office.

So in other words there was a wild goose and Darrell Issa spent millions of taxpayer money to chase it around for a year and a half. 

And let's not forget that Issa wasted similar amounts of taxpayer money in his "Fast and Furious" and Benghazi investigations.

God what a tool.

Congressman Michael Grimm does not believe that pleading guilty to a felony is any reason to lose his job.

"What do you mean what an I doing here today? I work here."

Courtesy of The Washington Times:  

Rep. Michael G. Grimm, New York Republican, said Tuesday he does not plan to resign his seat after pleading guilty to one felony tax charge tied to activities involving a restaurant he co-owned prior to winning election to Congress in 2010. 

Grimm pleaded guilty to helping prepare a false tax return, a charge stemming from a 20-count indictment against the congressman handed up in April. The former FBI agent faces up to three years in prison and is scheduled to be sentenced June 8. 

The indictment accused Grimm of understating gross receipts and employee wages at a health restaurant he had co-owned by more than $1 million. 

After his court appearance, Grimm apologized for his actions and said what he did was wrong but said he does not plan to step down. 

“I’m going to get back to work and work as hard as I can,” he said. 

No you're not. You don't get to do that.  Does he?

Well apparently so far nobody is locking him out of his office or dragging him off the floor of Congress in handcuffs, so I guess he can.

I mean sure the Democrats are pitching a fit and calling for Boehner to give this criminal the heave ho, but who listens to them anymore?

And don't forget that this is the same asshole who threatened to break a reporter in half and throw him off a balcony.

If you want to watch a brilliant take on this Rachel Maddow has that very thing for you.

Michelle Bachmann claims that she defeated her liberal foes using "evidence based arguments." Wait, what?

Courtesy of Raw Story:

Bachmann told World Net Daily, which referred to her as a “GOP legend” in the headline, that she had become a media target because she had basically outsmarted her liberal foes. 

“I took them on, and their agenda, and I went to the heart of whatever it was they wanted to advance, and tried to take it apart through evidence-based arguments, and they don’t like that,” Bachmann said. “When the left argues, they argue from emotionalism.” 
  
“That’s the best way to defeat them, by the way — defeat them with evidence and defeat them with their false premises, and I did that,” she said.

“The Republican Party always gets a bad rap because there are not as many women that are in elective office, but it’s a tough business,” Bachmann said. “It is public humiliation, public ridicule, constant criticism when you’re in public office – if you take on the left.”

Yeah, I don't think the ridiculing had anything to do with her gender.

Let's revisit some of Michelle Bachmann's "evidenced-based arguments" shall we?

These are courtesy of the Daily Kos:

Accusing members of Congress of being "anti-American:

The news media should do a penetrating expose and take a look. I wish they would, I wish the American media would take a great look at the views of the people in Congress and find out are they are pro-America or anti-America. 

Claiming that the Obama Administration was going to be forcing Americans to attend re-education camps:

The real concerns is that there are provisions for what I would call re-education camps for young people, where young people have to go and get trained in a philosophy that the government puts forward and then they have to go to work in some of these politically correct forums. 

Claiming that actor John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa, when instead it was serial killer John Wayne Gacy:

What I want them to know is just like John Wayne was from Waterloo, Iowa, that's the spirit that I have too. It's really about not being ashamed of America. It's embracing America. 

Terrifying parents by relaying an unsubstantiated story from an anti-vaxxer:

There’s a woman who came up crying to me tonight after the debate. She said her daughter was given [the HPV] vaccine. She told me her daughter suffered mental retardation as a result. There are very dangerous consequences. 

Claiming that earthquakes and hurricanes are messages from God about reining in big government:

I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians. We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending.

There are more, in fact the Daily Kos lists 40 altogether, but I think we get the point. 

That my friends is the kind of "logic" that Michelle Bachmann used to "defeat" us.

Gosh, I guess we never had a chance.

Creepy Congressman, who owns creepy domain name, accused of being creepy.

Courtesy of Breitbart Unmasked:  

Shocker! Rep. Blake Farenthold, a Republican Congressman from Texas who was recently outed as the owner of the dirty domain name www.blow-me.org, is facing a lawsuit from a former employee who claims he created a hostile workplace filled with gender discrimination and inappropriate sexual comments. 

Lauren Greene, who worked for Farenthold from February 2013 through her termination in July 2014, cited a number of incidents of sexually-charged misconduct in a lawsuit filed with the U.S. District Court last week. 

Greene’s complaint paints a picture of a man-child who couldn’t keep his sexual comments and behavior to himself — so his staff was tasked with keeping him in line. She claimed that Farenthold “regularly drank to excess, and because of his tendency to flirt, the staffers who accompanied him to Capitol Hill functions would joke that they had to be on ‘red head patrol’ to keep him out of trouble.” When she observed that Farenthold seemed to be avoiding her during part of her employment period, his executive assistant, Emily Wilkes allegedly told her “that Farenthold had admitted to being attracted to Plaintiff and to having ‘sexual fantasies’ and ‘wet dreams’ about Plaintiff.” 

He even allegedly bragged to her about his invitation to a threesome with a lobbyist. (Which, aside from the grossness of the proposition, also raises some serious ethics questions.) Also: Yuck. Just yuck. 

Okay let's all just relax.

I mean he hasn't been convicted of any....I mean it's not like he looks cree....It's probably just a misund.....yeah I got nothing. The guy totally creeps me out. 

In fact the characteristics described by the plaintiff are EXACTLY what I have pictured about this guy from the second that I saw him back in 2010.

Boy I bet he regrets having his picture taken in those duckie pj's now.

As Michele Bachmann leaves Congress she claims to have no plans to run for President but still plans to be a major pain in the ass.

Courtesy of CNN:  

Rep. Michele Bachmann says now that she's leaving Congress, she can "take the handcuffs off." 

In an interview with CNN's Wolf Blitzer on Friday, the eight-year Minnesota congresswoman said she wants to play a major role in the 2016 presidential campaign -- even though she has no plans to seek the Republican nomination. 

"I intend to go around the country and speak nationally on a variety of issues. I'll be writing. I'll be affiliating with groups," she said.

Well I don't know who had Bachmann handcuffed, but that just seems wrong.

If they really wanted to control her they would have gagged her instead.

As for her plans to "go around the country and speak nationally on a variety of issues,"  I think she might be trespassing on somebody else's turf.

Besides who can really take her seriously until she gets her own channel?

Right?

Sarah Palin once again under the delusion that she speaks for America, and seems to forget that newly elected members of Congress are not yet on the job.

Courtesy of Not the Voice of America's Facebook page:

Grant me this use of America's voice: When you cut through all the “inside baseball” stuff in this Omnibus Spending Bill that's in front of Congress, you're left with two cold hard facts: this bill doesn't defund Obama's amnesty (so he gets to reward lawbreakers with your tax dollars) and it adds to our dangerous, unsustainable debt. It also breaks campaign promises made by quite a few of our incumbent politicians on both sides of the aisle. Hey, if you thought we wanted more of the same as we worked our butts off to get good folks elected in November, then why did we vote to oust liberals who got America into this mess in the first place? Guess what, GOP: our victory party is over and voters are wide awake and trusting you to keep your promises to America. Get a handle on your debt. Stop Obama's amnesty to illegal aliens. Support our military. Bottom line: we elected you to stop Obama's “fundamental transformation of America.” Do it – especially you Republicans who promised to do it. Or face America's wrath next go 'round because an elephant never forgets. 

"Grant me the use of America's voice." Does that remind anybody else of Palin writing that letter she wrote in God's voice about her easy pregnancy over a week before Trig was actually born?

For the record she does NOT speak in America's voice.

And also for the record the newly elected 2014 House members are not yet able to vote on this bill, and some of the members who are still there she actively tried to get replaced, so who the hell is she talking to?

However I am thrilled that she now refers to herself as an "elephant," because I have been looking for a new nickname. 

Not to shock you or anything but I do almost agree with Palin on this, only not for the same reasons of course.

This Omnibus bill actually does suck and there are legitimate reasons to be against it.

Here are a few: 

Congressional appropriators ordered four more F-35 joint strike fighters at a cost of $479 million dollars, even though the Pentagon didn’t ask for them. 

Since those shiny new F-35s aren’t going to pay for themselves, Congress did manage to trim a few areas of the budget. For example, the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children, commonly referred to as WIC, was on the receiving end of a $93 million budget cut. 

The 2014 Midterms saw voters in Oregon, Alaska, and Washington, D.C. vote to legalize Marijuana for recreational use. Unlike in Alaska and Oregon, however, the D.C. ballot measure is subject to congressional approval. So, despite the fact that the actual citizens of Washington, D.C. voted for legalization by a margin of more than 2 to 1, anti-legalization advocates in Congress attached a rider that completely undoes the voter-backed change and keeps Marijuana illegal. 

The current budget deal includes a repeal of the Dodd-Frank derivatives rule that was literally written by big bank lobbyists — A leaked document obtained by the New York Times revealed that 70 of the 85 lines of derivatives language reflect recommendations made in a piece of model legislation drafted by lobbyists for Citigroup, another bank that played a major role in the 2008 crisis and also received billions of federal stimulus dollars. 

If all of this sounds familiar, it’s because the House passed the exact same CitiGroup-written law last year, but it died after resistance from the Senate and Treasury Department. Now, Wall Street’s allies in Congress have effectively copy-pasted the CitiGroup-approved language out of the old bill and into the current budget deal, which is much less susceptible to a veto threat since a veto would shut down the government. In a provision conveniently located on page 1,599 of a 1,603 page document, 

Congress lays out donation rules that would allow individuals to give more than $300,000 directly to political parties every year. According to the Washington Post’s Matea Gold, under the new rules, one couple could legally funnel nearly $1.3 million to a party’s various account. 

So yes there are real reasons to be frustrated by this bill, however they are certainly not the ones pissing off the Wasilla Wendigo.

By the way this is the picture that Palin used for her Facebook post on this.

That's Sarah Palin in a nutshell.

Claiming to speak for American while wrapping her feet in it's flag.

I Can't Breathe.

Courtesy of Raw Story:  

Some in Congress have already expressed their solidarity with Garner and other victims of police brutality. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA), the sponsor of legislation to curb police militarization, made a moving tribute to Garner, speaking about police militarization and including the phrase, “I can’t breathe” between each statement—the phrase Garner said as his life was choked away, and which has since become a rallying cry for protesters.

Here it is in its entirety:

“Black men and boys killed by police. 

 I can’t breathe. 

Impunity for the killers—no justice, no peace. 

I can’t breathe. 

Militarized police met peaceful protesters on their knees. 

I can’t breathe. 

Weapons of war—a show of force on our streets. 

I can’t breathe. 

Disenfranchised youth driven to violence as speech. 

I can’t breathe. 

Cynical media makes this great TV. 

I can’t breathe. 

This cowardly Congress afraid of losing our seats. 

 I can’t breathe. 

Half-hearted reform when there’s more that we need. 

I can’t breathe. 

Just thinking about the despair that it breeds. 

 I can’t breathe. 

 Black lives matter. Hear my pleas. 

 I can’t breathe."

Okay that gave me chills.

Bristol Palin brags that it was her mother who started the stupid idea of trying to impeach President Obama. And this is something to brag about?

Courtesy of Bristol's Facebook page.

So Brancy put up a new post yesterday about how the whole impeachment of President Obama that some Right Wing nutjobs are promoting was all her mama's idea: 

A lot of people disagreed at first, saying it was too risky. But now more and more are seeing that Mom was right. 

President Obama ignores court orders, makes up his own laws, and pretends laws he doesn’t like don’t exist. That’s pretty much the opposite of the President’s job description. 

And now he’s gone and declared his own immigration policy that Americans clearly said they don’t want. 

After his latest action, Fox News, Sean Hannity, and Chris Wallace started talking about impeachment. Mark Levin says he deserves it. And now Congress members are bringing it up.

Yes there are some fringe Republicans, conservative radio talk show hosts, and politicians desperate to get attention, talking about impeachment. However both Mitch McConnell and John Boehner have said there is no way they are allowing a vote like that to come to the floor.

And that is because on some level they realize that impeaching this President would be the best thing they could possibly do for his legacy.

Just think he would be the second Democratic President impeached by the Republicans IN A ROW!

There is no way that comes off looking good to the American voters.

However that rather obvious fact is a little too complicated for Snowdrift Snooki and her little snowflake. This is how Nancy French closed out the post for Bristol and her mom: 

When the president gets out of control, impeachment is how the people can pull him back. Mom says making the case is the easy part — what’s hard is having the guts, courage and political will to do it.

All I have to say is PLEASE MAKE THIS HAPPEN!

If there were a way to make the Republicans waste the next two years fighting to impeach this President it would be a godsend to the Democrats, whose campaign ads would write themselves, and who would use the anger and frustration of the American people to take back not only the Senate, but very likely the House as well.

And if Bristol and Sarah somehow convince the country that it actually WAS the Wasilla Wendigo who first promoted this idea, which I don't think it was, then it is SHE who will be blamed for the benefit that it provides to the Democrats and the destruction that is visited upon the GOP in response.

But it is not going to happen. And that is because virtually all of the people in Washington are significantly more intelligent than this batshit crazy reality actress and her idiotic daughter.

(H/T to Wonkette.)

Final image of the day.

Yeah I think this is a fair representation of what ideologically driven Americans are thankful for this holiday season.

Senator Lindsey Graham responds to report by the Republican led House Intelligence Committee exonerating the White House over Benghazi as you might expect: "I think the report is full of crap."

Courtesy of The Hill: 

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Sunday blasted a House GOP-led investigation that recently debunked myths about the 2012 Benghazi attack. 

“I think the report is full of crap,” Graham said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” 

After Graham was asked whether the report exonerates the administration, he initially ignored the question, and then eventually said “no.” 

The House Intelligence panel, Graham said, is “doing a lousy job policing their own.” Graham didn’t clearly pinpoint why he dismissed the report’s findings, but suggested its information was provided by people in the intelligence community who had previously lied to Congress about the attack. 

“I don’t believe the report is accurate given the role [former CIA deputy director] Mike Morell played in misleading the Congress on two occasions,” Graham said. 

Host Gloria Borger said the report found no one lied. 

“That’s a bunch of garbage,” Graham replied.

I swear if this keeps up Graham might have to go lie down on his fainting couch with a chilled mint julip. 

After all what part of "Benghazi! Benghazi! Benghazi!" did this intelligence committee not understand?

Since when did SNL become an outlet for Fox News propaganda?

So earlier in the day I saw a post about this skit some website or another suggesting that it was great.

I did not read the whole thing because I didn't want the skit to be spoiled before I had a chance to see it. (#Alaskaproblems.)

But as I'm watching the damn thing I kept shaking my head and saying out loud, "WTF? That's not what happened at all!"

Think Progress noticed the same thing:  

“BILL: And if I pass the legislative test, then I wind up on the President’s desk… 

BOY: President Obama what’s the big idea? That bill was trying to become a law.” 

In the sketch, once the bill reaches Obama’s desk, he pushes the bill down the steps. But this is the opposite of what actually happened. Obama was desperate to see an immigration bill — of virtually any type — cross his desk. In May 2013, he reached a tentative deal with a bipartisan group of House lawmakers, which would have been substantially more conservative than the Senate bill. It was ultimately rejected by Republican House leadership. 

“BILL: Don’t you have to go through Congress at some point? 

EXECUTIVE ORDER: Oh that’s adorable, you still think that’s how government works.” 

The implication here is that presidents before Obama didn’t use executive action for major policy areas. In fact, George H.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan both used executive orders to protect undocumented immigrants. In 1989, Bush’s order protected about 40% of the undocumented population, roughly the same percentage as Obama’s order.

Think Progress ends the article by saying that SNL is under no obligation to get their facts right in order to do parody, but I disagree with that.

Maybe back in the 70's SNL could be a little sloppy, and get by with it because their viewers were not nearly as well informed as viewers today. But in a world where they are competing with brilliant satirists like Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and HBO's John Oliver, they need to cross their fucking 't's" and dot their fucking "i's."

Do you know how you know when you have really screwed the pooch while presenting a political parody? When freaking Ted Cruz is quoting you while attacking the President, that's how.

I have been pretty underwhelmed with SNL this season, but I thought I would give them a chance to his their stride.

Yeah well forget that shit now. I am done with them.
 

Republicans pass bill that would bar scientists from providing testimony to the EPA on their own research. But don't worry, it's still okay for corporations to have THEIR "experts" provide input.

Courtesy of Salon:  

H.R. 1422, which passed 229-191, would shake up the EPA’s Scientific Advisory Board, placing restrictions on those pesky scientists and creating room for experts with overt financial ties to the industries affected by EPA regulations. 

The bill is being framed as a play for transparency: Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, argued that the board’s current structure is problematic because it “excludes industry experts, but not officials for environmental advocacy groups.” The inclusion of industry experts, he said, would right this injustice. 

But the White House, which threatened to veto the bill, said it would “negatively affect the appointment of experts and would weaken the scientific independence and integrity of the SAB.” 

In what might be the most ridiculous aspect of the whole thing, the bill forbids scientific experts from participating in “advisory activities” that either directly or indirectly involve their own work. In case that wasn’t clear: experts would be forbidden from sharing their expertise in their own research — the bizarre assumption, apparently, being that having conducted peer-reviewed studies on a topic would constitute a conflict of interest. “In other words,” wrote Union of Concerned Scientists director Andrew A. Rosenberg in an editorial for RollCall, “academic scientists who know the most about a subject can’t weigh in, but experts paid by corporations who want to block regulations can.”

Obviously the President is going to veto this, but it certainly paints a frightening picture of what might happen if the Republicans manage to get a veto proof majority, or somehow get a Republican into the White House.

They aren't even being covert about these kids of things anymore, or trying to hide the fact that they are anti-science and in the pockets of big business.

Republican led House investigative committee finds there is no Benghazi scandal. Gee, really?

Courtesy of Mother Jones:

 The House Select Intelligence Committee—controlled by Republicans—has been investigating the Benghazi attacks in minute detail for two years. Today, with the midterm elections safely past, they issued their findings. Their exoneration of the White House was sweeping and nearly absolute. So sweeping that I want to quote directly from the report's summary, rather than paraphrasing it. Here it is: 

The Committee first concludes that the CIA ensured sufficient security for CIA facilities in Benghazi....Appropriate U.S. personnel made reasonable tactical decisions that night, and the Committee found no evidence that there was either a stand down order or a denial of available air support.... 

Second, the Committee finds that there was no intelligence failure prior to the attacks. In the months prior, the IC provided intelligence about previous attacks and the increased threat environment in Benghazi, but the IC did not have specific, tactical warning of the September 11 attacks. 

Third, the Committee finds that a mixed group of individuals, including those affiliated with Al Qa'ida, participated in the attacks.... 

Fourth, the Committee concludes that after the attacks, the early intelligence assessments and the Administration's initial public narrative on the causes and motivations for the attacks were not fully accurate....There was no protest. The CIA only changed its initial assessment about a protest on September 24, 2012, when closed caption television footage became available on September 18, 2012 (two days after Ambassador Susan Rice spoke).... 

Fifth, the Committee finds that the process used to generate the talking points HPSCI asked for—and which were used for Ambassador Rice's public appearances—was flawed.... 

Finally, the Committee found no evidence that any officer was intimidated, wrongly forced to sign a nondisclosure agreement or otherwise kept from speaking to Congress, or polygraphed because of their presence in Benghazi. The Committee also found no evidence that the CIA conducted unauthorized activities in Benghazi and no evidence that the IC shipped arms to Syria. 

It's hard to exaggerate just how remarkable this document is. It's not that the committee found nothing to criticize. They did. The State Department facility in Benghazi had inadequate security. Some of the early intelligence after the attacks was inaccurate. The CIA should have given more weight to eyewitnesses on the ground. 

But those are routine after-action critiques, ones that were fully acknowledged by the very first investigations. Beyond that, every single conspiracy theory—without exception—was conclusively debunked. There was no stand down order. The tactical response was both reasonable and effective under the circumstances. The CIA was not shipping arms from Libya to Syria. Both CIA and State received all military support that was available. The talking points after the attack were fashioned by the intelligence community, not the White House. Susan Rice followed these talking points in her Sunday show appearances, and where she was wrong, it was only because the intelligence community had made incorrect assessments. Nobody was punitively reassigned or polygraphed or otherwise intimidated to prevent them from testifying to Congress.

Okay does anybody else feel that this should be national news on ALL cable and network news outlets? Including Fox?

And not only that I feel that the Republicans should also apologize to President Obama and Hillary Clinton for essentially accusing them of allowing Americans to die and treason.

Of course that would never happen. But it should.

So I guess the Republicans will now simply shift their focus to attacking Obamacare again and suing the President for doing his job.

Different shit, same bunch of assholes.

Republicans file lawsuit against President Obama over the Affordable Care Act.

Courtesy of the New York Times:  

House Republicans filed a long-threatened lawsuit Friday against the Obama administration over unilateral actions on the health care law that they say are abuses of the president’s executive authority. 

The lawsuit — filed against the secretaries of the Health and Human Services and Treasury Departments — focuses on two crucial aspects of the way the administration has put the Affordable Care Act into effect. 

The suit accuses the Obama administration of unlawfully postponing a requirement that larger employers offer health coverage to their full-time employees or pay penalties. (Larger companies are defined as those with 50 or more employees.) 

In July 2013, the administration deferred that requirement until 2015. Seven months later, the administration announced a further delay, until 2016, for employers with 50 to 99 employees. 

The suit also challenges what it says is President Obama’s unlawful giveaway of roughly $175 billion to insurance companies under the law. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the administration will pay that amount to the companies over the next 10 years, though the funds have not been appropriated by Congress. The lawsuit argues that it is an unlawful transfer of funds.

I can't believe they finally did it.What a waste of time, money, and resources.

So they are going to sue the President over this, but allowed George W. Bush to lie to the American people and members of Congress and start an illegal war without receiving so much as an order of cease and desist?

Hypocritical bastards!

Well I guess we know what this new Congress will be focused on for the next two years.

As I said before perhaps the most vicious battle will not be between the Republicans and Obama, but rather between the Republicans and the Republicans.

Courtesy of The New York Times:

 As most Republicans were taking a victory lap the morning after the elections, a group of conservatives huddled anxiously in a conference room not far from Capitol Hill and agreed that now is the time for confrontation, not compromise and conciliation. 

Despite Republicans’ ascension to Senate control and an expanded House majority, many conservatives from the party’s activist wing fear that congressional leaders are already being too timid with President Obama. 

They do not want to hear that government shutdowns are off the table or that repealing the Affordable Care Act is impossible — two things Republican leaders have said in recent days. 

“If the new Republican leadership in the Senate is only talking about what they can’t do, that’s going to be very demoralizing,” said Thomas J. Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group that convenes a regular gathering called Groundswell. Any sense of triumph at its meeting last week was fleeting. 

“I think the members of the leadership need to decide what they’re willing to shut down the government over,” Mr. Fitton said.

The positive thing to take away form this is that the GOP may be so distracted by infighting that they are unable to get anything done. And they will certainly have a difficult time getting the votes together in order to pass legislation.

However on the negative side this means that establishment Republicans will be wary of making any deals which  might indicate weakness in the eyes of the rabid Right Wing and ensure primary challengers when they come up for reelection.

Ultimately this stand off may simply indicate that even with significantly higher numbers, and the Senate on their side, that the conservatives will be just as ineffectual at leading as they have been in the four years since John Boehner first picked up the Speaker's gavel.

Second law firm refuses to move forward with Republican plan to sue the President.

Courtesy of Vox:  

Back in July, the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted to file a historically unprecedented lawsuit against President Obama for delaying Obamacare's employer mandate. But months have since passed, with no news that a lawsuit has been drawn up or filed. There's been some speculation that Speaker John Boehner was intentionally slow-walking the process until after the election, not wanting to jeopardize the party's potential Senate gains by reviving headlines of House GOP overreach. 

This week, however, Politico's Josh Gerstein and Maggie Haberman reported that Boehner's actually been having serious problems even finding a law firm willing to file the suit — two have tentatively signed on, and then gotten cold feet. Originally, attorney David Rivkin — who crafted the unique legal arguments Boehner used to justify the suit — was supposed to draw up the suit itself. But his firm, Baker Hostetler, pulled out. More recently, Bill Burck of the firm Quinn Emanuel was also tentatively hired, until similarly backing away.

Of course John Boehner does not actually want to sue the President. 

The lawsuit is just a bone that Boehner threw to the rabid Right Wing to keep them from pushing Congress to impeach Obama. Which Boehner knew would, number one fail, and number two energize the liberal base making it almost impossible for the Republicans to hang on to closely contested seats in this election cycle.

However, and this is what we need to keep in mind, IF the Republicans gain control of the Senate there is literally nothing holding them back from actually attempting to impeach the President, dismantling Obamacare, and undoing many of the President's most important policies.

That is why it is beyond critical for all of us to show up and vote at the polls.

If we think things are bad now, we are in for a very rude awakening once the Republicans get a lock on power in Washington.

New poll numbers show good news for Alaskan Democrats.

Courtesy of Ivan Moore's Facebook page:  

600 sample of registered voters, fielded Friday 24th - Sunday 26th. MOE +/- 4%. 

There are two likely voter subgroups for this survey, one fairly loose (544 sample), and one tighter (330 sample). I'm giving results for both screens for transparency. Suffice to say, the 544 sample suggests a 90% turnout, which is highly unlikely, even this year... while the 330 suggests a 55% turnout, which is historically very close to reality. Also the age distribution of the 330 sample is exactly what you would see if you combined Alaska census data for age with average turnouts by age group. In other words, the 544 gives us good sample size in our view of the electorate, the 330 is the closer modeling of turnout on election day: 
 

Senator Mark Begich

US SENATE: 

544 sample: Begich (D) 48.3% Sullivan (R) 41.6% Other 6.5% Undecided 3.6% 

330 sample: Begich (D) 50.1% Sullivan (R) 42.2% Other 5.3% Undecided 2.4% 
 

Forrest Dunbar

US CONGRESS: 

544 sample: Dunbar (D) 42.6% Young (R) 44.4% McDermott (L) 9.5% Undecided 3.5% 

330 sample: Dunbar (D) 46.1% Young (R) 40.6% McDermott (L) 9.6% Undecided 3.7% 

Not much of a difference in the Senate race between the two screens... Begich has a 6.7% lead in one, 7.9% in the other. 

The Congress race is interesting... Young up by 1.8% when you look at the wider population, but zero in on the people who are the highest probability to turn out and Dunbar has a lead of 5.5%. 

That's what happens when you really tick people off two weeks before an election.

I had been avoiding pollsters lately so I was not part of this one, however yesterday I did participate in two back to back polls, and one was for Moore, so I imagine that the next poll will include my input.

I have to say that if these polls are accurate it indicates some very good news for Alaskans.

It would be very unusual for Dan Sullivan to win against a lifelong Alaskan, as regardless of politics we tend to protect our own. Begich may not vote the way that many Alaskans want him to in Washington, but he is still one of us.

As for Don Young, well one of us or not, he is becoming too much of an embarrassment for Alaskans to tolerate any longer.

Quite literally every time I hear his name come up it is right before somebody expresses anger and frustration at having him represent us in D.C..

I really think that Don Young may finally have pissed off too many people to wind the election. 

About damn time!

Michele Bachmann gets her own security detail after ISIS issues threats. Oh you know she LOVES this!

"Oh yeah those ISIS folks are trying to shut me up don'tcha know. Not very Christian of them."

Courtesy of Politico: 

Federal law enforcement officials are taking an ISIL threat against Michele Bachmann so seriously that Capitol Police have given the Minnesota Republican her own security detail. 

An online threat against Bachmann emerged recently, according to multiple law enforcement officials familiar with the situation. Last week, Bachmann was provided a security detail in response, according to the sources. 

Members of the U.S. Capitol Police’s Dignitary Protection Division were briefed on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. The police security will continue until Bachmann, who will retire at the end of this Congress, is no longer in office. 

A police detail of this type typically means 24-hour protection when a member of Congress is on Capitol Hill or back in the home district.

I think Bachmann might want to take note of the fact that her security detail only lasts until she is out of office. Might want to STFU around then.

Apparently Bachmann, who has been going after ISIS like a dog with a bone, had a portion of her Voters Values speech featured in a recent ISIS propaganda video.

Personally I doubt if Bachmann is in any real danger, though I can certainly understand the terrorist group's desire to make her stop talking.

I imagine with this new credibility Bachmann is a shoo-in for a hosting position on Fox News. So we all have THAT to look forward to.

Would it be wrong for me to root for the bad guys just this once? It would right?

MSNBC's Chris Hayes "Did Alaska Congressman Don Young kill a guy?"

Click pompous ass to play video

Let me first say that I think I may have squealed out loud when I heard Chris Hayes say those words in the headline. However I think I deserve a pass on that as I have been waiting all week for this story to make it to cable news.

As you watch the segment you can see that neither Hayes, nor Young's opponent Forrest Dunbar, take any of this very seriously, but MSNBC also includes a kind of "best of Don Young" portion as well which as we Alaskans know all too well is anything but good for the Congressman.

Now I am hoping that this inspires other news outlets to really go after Young on this issue.

Because don't forget folks we really only have three choices here.

1. Either Don Young is a senile old coot who just says crazy shit.
2. Don Young is a habitual liar who says crazy shit.
3. Or Don Young is a murderer, who does crazy shit. 

And NONE of those are good for Don Young.

However getting him to admit any one of them IS good for Alaska.