Trampoline Republicans

[gotsnowgotslush]

There is hubris and a brouhaha, thanks to Republicans that decided to use a figurative trampoline to launch their opinions above the authority of our President.


Attention whoring to create a diversion ? When you toss garbage into the midst of internationl negotiations, expect world wide derision and disgust.

47 republican senators interfere with U.S.-Iran relations

Remember When GOP Rep. Accused Pelosi Of Breaking Law By Interfering With Foreign Policy?

2007

Iowa Congressman Steve King said then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in violation of the Logan Act

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/remember-when-gop-rep-accused-pelosi
3/10/15

March 9, 2015

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, released the following statement after 47 Senate Republicans sent an open letter to Iran’s leaders in an apparent attempt to undermine the negotiations:

This partisan letter from several of my colleagues is nothing more than another attempt by members of the Republican caucus to undermine ongoing negotiations and undercut the credibility of the American negotiators. Of course Congress will always have the authority to weigh in on any agreement the President signs with another nation, but to suggest that a future President would cancel a deal that hasn’t even been concluded yet unmasks the true intention of the letter's signers. Let's be honest - if we successfully convince Iran to abandon their nuclear weapons program in a verifiable way, no future President - Republican or Democrat - is going to walk away from that.”

http://www.murphy.senate.gov/newsro...hy-statement-on-gop-letter-to-iranian-leaders

Richard Nephew, who was on U.S. teams negotiating with Iran during both the Bush and Obama administrations-

Nephew said, "The idea that a sitting group of senators of either party would write to the other side of a negotiation to say, 'Eh, don't sign a deal with these guys' — to me, it really smacks of a misplaced understanding of how the international system is supposed to work."


http://www.wbur.org/npr/392067866/iran-calls-gop-letter-propaganda-ploy-offers-to-enlighten-authors

 

[phrodeau]

That reminds me of Laurel's avatar.

 

[KingOrfeo]

That reminds me of Laurel's avatar.

And the circus is phasing that out!

 

[Boxlicker101]

I don't know that the senators were as far out of line as we are being led to believe. Here is the relevant part of Article II of the US Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The Senate, unlike the House, does have some say in negotiations with foreign countries.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So fuck Obama and the crowd who want a nigger messiah.

 

[sr71plt]

The Senate, unlike the House, does have some say in negotiations with foreign countries.

Well, no--and I can't believe you really read in that that they can. It's the U.S. president they are to advise, not foreign governments they are to deal directly with. Surely you're not that dumb.

 

[1sickbastard]

See, now I'm definitely back to wanting a Palin/Bachmann ticket because I think those two would look good on a trampoline.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Well, no--and I can't believe you really read in that that they can. It's the U.S. president they are to advise, not foreign governments they are to deal directly with. Surely you're not that dumb.

^^^^^What he means is: It pisses him off when meddling Republicans do what meddling Democrats do. And Democrat junkets across hell are cool.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, no--and I can't believe you really read in that that they can. It's the U.S. president they are to advise, not foreign governments they are to deal directly with. Surely you're not that dumb.

What I am saying is they advise the president, and that's what they did. It was done in the form of an open letter to the other party, but the result was the same. Advise, but maybe no consent.

 

[Boxlicker101]

See, now I'm definitely back to wanting a Palin/Bachmann ticket because I think those two would look good on a trampoline.

Sarah Palin would, especially in yoga pants and a tight sweater.

 

[sr71plt]

What I am saying is they advise the president, and that's what they did. It was done in the form of an open letter to the other party, but the result was the same. Advise, but maybe no consent.

Well, I can see that you are as clueless as ever.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I don't know that the senators were as far out of line as we are being led to believe. Here is the relevant part of Article II of the US Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The Senate, unlike the House, does have some say in negotiations with foreign countries.

The Senate's only say in negotiations are after the fact, to ratify or not. They are not afforded input into negotiations. That is the preview of the President alone, and was ruled to be so by SCOTUS as I already posted in the Boehner "Logan Act" thread.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I don't know that the senators were as far out of line as we are being led to believe. Here is the relevant part of Article II of the US Constitution:

He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court, and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law: but the Congress may by Law vest the Appointment of such inferior Officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the Courts of Law, or in the Heads of Departments.

The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.

The Senate, unlike the House, does have some say in negotiations with foreign countries.

They have the power to advise the President. Injecting themselves directly into negotiations is a flagrant abuse of protocol, your rancid revisionism notwithstanding.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Sarah Palin would, especially in yoga pants and a tight sweater.

Meh. I'd go with Sarah Palin . . . but I'd be thinking of Tina Fey.

 

[NeverEndingMe]

and we can't forget about this one ...


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3a/Blagojevich.jpg


how all the criminal politicians from Illinois, New York, and New Jersey

stop being an ass monkey and put down the cuckold juice

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Sen. Tom Cotton's letter lectures the Iranians on U.S. constitutional law, explaining that only two-thirds of the U.S. Senate can ratify a treaty and make it enforceable. The Iranian foreign minister, a U.S. graduate, knew more about the U.S. Constitution and international law than Cotton does. The Senate does not ratify treaties. It gives its advice and consent to the president, who then decides whether to formally ratify a treaty. The foreign minister observed that the United States could violate an international agreement if it chose but that it would violate international law.

Challenging the legitimacy of presidential accords is an old congressional battle, but nearly every president in the past 75 years has executed them, often over congressional criticism: wartime agreements by President Roosevelt and subsequent ones by Truman, Nixon's Vietnam truce in 1973, Gerald Ford's Sinai agreements, and the list goes on. The biggest challenge was the series of Bricker amendments to the Constitution (named after Sen. John W. Bricker of Ohio) in the 1950s that would have outlawed presidential agreements. President Eisenhower fought his fellow Republican bitterly, declaring that the amendments would "cripple the executive power to the point that we become helpless in world affairs."



http://www.arktimes.com/arkansas/news/Section?oid=861840

 

[unregistered]

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

Look at them rise in their own esteem! Watch them miss the trampoline, and fall on their backsides!

The Amazing 47 Senators! Entertaining us, with their "jokes." Thrilling us with tales of deadly threats!

Dramatic performances, daily. If there are too many rotten tomatoes launched, they will be hiding out in the dressing room.

They will send out the aides, to help the Republican "show" more along.


"Republican aides were taken aback by what they thought was a lighthearted attempt..."
"Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder..."

"the (Obama) administration has no sense of humor..."

The stuffy and staid Washington Post writers have an observation-


"...the GOP response ranges from sheer denial of a problem to “¯\_(ツ)_/¯”, that’s a sign that they’re not serious at all about foreign policy."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...a-job-youre-doing-on-foreign-policy-congress/

The Amazing 47 put the theatre, in political theatre! Political pie fights, stunts and tricks! Showboating, and a parade of clowns!

Wonkette's words-

"Sen. Tom Cotton appeared on “Morning Joe” on Tuesday to try to dig himself out of his hole, he didn’t say nothin’ about how it was just some light-hearted fun."


"He insisted he and his colleagues were simply trying to give Iranian leaders a U.S. civics lesson, for their own good, even though they are our sworn enemy and we hate them and will bomb them to kingdom come."


Who will supply the USA with all the bombs that will be needed ?

Sen. Tom Cotton has a cozy relationship with the suppliers-

Asked if Cotton will speak about his Iran letter [...], Jimmy Thomas, NDIA (National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors, executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms.) Jimmy Thomas, also Director of Legislative Policy, said, “[M]ost members…talk about everything from the budget to Iran…so it’s highly likely that he may address that in his remarks.” According to Thomas, the Cotton event was scheduled in January, “but certainly we bring people to the platform that have influence directly on our issues."


http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/grifters-gotta-grift-sen-tom-cotton

 

[RjThoughts]

Look at them rise in their own esteem! Watch them miss the trampoline, and fall on their backsides!

The Amazing 47 Senators! Entertaining us, with their "jokes." Thrilling us with tales of deadly threats!

Dramatic performances, daily. If there are too many rotten tomatoes launched, they will be hiding out in the dressing room.

They will send out the aides, to help the Republican "show" more along.


"Republican aides were taken aback by what they thought was a lighthearted attempt..."
"Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a “cheeky” reminder..."

"the (Obama) administration has no sense of humor..."

The stuffy and staid Washington Post writers have an observation-


"...the GOP response ranges from sheer denial of a problem to “¯\_(ツ)_/¯”, that’s a sign that they’re not serious at all about foreign policy."


http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...a-job-youre-doing-on-foreign-policy-congress/

The Amazing 47 put the theatre, in political theatre! Political pie fights, stunts and tricks! Showboating, and a parade of clowns!

Wonkette's words-

"Sen. Tom Cotton appeared on “Morning Joe” on Tuesday to try to dig himself out of his hole, he didn’t say nothin’ about how it was just some light-hearted fun."


"He insisted he and his colleagues were simply trying to give Iranian leaders a U.S. civics lesson, for their own good, even though they are our sworn enemy and we hate them and will bomb them to kingdom come."


Who will supply the USA with all the bombs that will be needed ?

Sen. Tom Cotton has a cozy relationship with the suppliers-

Asked if Cotton will speak about his Iran letter [...], Jimmy Thomas, NDIA (National Defense Industrial Association, a lobbying and professional group for defense contractors, executives from major military businesses such as Northrop Grumman, L-3 Communications, ManTech International, Boeing, Oshkosh Defense and Booz Allen Hamilton, among other firms.) Jimmy Thomas, also Director of Legislative Policy, said, “[M]ost members…talk about everything from the budget to Iran…so it’s highly likely that he may address that in his remarks.” According to Thomas, the Cotton event was scheduled in January, “but certainly we bring people to the platform that have influence directly on our issues."


http://crooksandliars.com/2015/03/grifters-gotta-grift-sen-tom-cotton

He should go back on 'Morning Joe' and blame it on hip-hop, or as Jon Stewart called it 'the hippity-hoppity.'

 

[KingOrfeo]

Yes the President exchanges the instrument of treaty ratification, a minor point, but that cannot occur without a two thirds vote of the Senate. The President can make agreements with foreign powers that do not require ratification, but he cannot make an agreement that binds the Congress of the United States, to levy taxes, spend money, or lift existing sanctions imposed by Congress without their approval.

And Iran's Foreign Minister knows all of that and does not need to be told.

 

[RjThoughts]

And Iran's Foreign Minister knows all of that and does not need to be told.

Vette et al are all deflecting, because they know Congress cannot interject themselves into on going treaty negotiations, which the 47 just did.

 

[gotsnowgotslush]

wheeee! Up, bounces Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee


(His office sent out a letter to President Obama. Will they blame this on the aides, again ?)

March 12, 2015

"There are now reports that your administration is contemplating taking an agreement, or aspects of it, to the United Nations Security Council for a vote."

-Senator Bob Corker

(Why send out a letter, now?)

NY Times takes notice-


"Mr. Corker has drafted legislation that would require the White House to submit the Iran agreement to Congress for a vote. Mr. Corker has been trying to build enough bipartisan support for the measure that lawmakers could override a veto."

"But his efforts have been hampered by a recent open letter to the Iranian leadership that was signed by 47 Republican senators."

 

[RjThoughts]

wheeee! Up, bounces Senator Bob Corker, a Republican from Tennessee


(His office sent out a letter to President Obama. Will they blame this on the aides, again ?)

March 12, 2015

"There are now reports that your administration is contemplating taking an agreement, or aspects of it, to the United Nations Security Council for a vote."

-Senator Bob Corker

(Why send out a letter, now?)

NY Times takes notice-


"Mr. Corker has drafted legislation that would require the White House to submit the Iran agreement to Congress for a vote. Mr. Corker has been trying to build enough bipartisan support for the measure that lawmakers could override a veto."

"But his efforts have been hampered by a recent open letter to the Iranian leadership that was signed by 47 Republican senators."

Sheesh, dumbasses. UN doesn't mean shit here!

 

[KingOrfeo]

Interesting analysis of why this happened.

Constitutions matter, but every political system depends as well on informal norms, a more or less tacit consensus on how things will be done and what kind of behavior is and isn’t acceptable. This is especially true in America, where our constitutional separation of executive and legislature, and extra-constitutional devices like the filibuster, require compromise and cooperation if the government is to function effectively. Political actors must accept the constraints laid down by the rules (formal and informal) that define legitimate behavior, and must trust that others will do so in turn. When this trust lapses, confrontation replaces compromise and the political system lurches into crisis.

There have been three moments in our history when something like this happened. The first arose very early, when anxieties about revolutionary France led the Federalist administration of John Adams to propose a number of measures, including the infamous “Alien and Sedition Acts,” intended to enhance executive authority and to repress domestic dissent. This led the Anti-federalists Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to draft a series of resolutions defending the right of states to nullify federal statutes they deemed unconstitutional. Adopted by the Kentucky and Virginia legislatures, these ignited a confrontation between proponents of Federal power and advocates of “states’ rights” that roiled our politics until the Civil War, and beyond.

The second moment, of course, was the Civil War itself. The third is much more recent, extending over at least the Obama presidency but with roots as far back, perhaps, as the Clinton impeachment. It involves the readiness of Republicans to violate long-standing norms of institutional conduct in order to advance a highly divisive, intensely partisan agenda. Impeachment and the threat of impeachment; the use of primaries to defeat Republican incumbents judged to be insufficiently “conservative”; a willingness to default on the debt or shutdown the government; the indiscriminate use of the filibuster to require super-majorities in the Senate on virtually every issue— this pattern of increasingly radical behavior may certainly be associated, in any given case, with the anger or pique of particular politicians. But its deepest source is in the political attitudes of an increasingly radical party.

<snip>

But these two factors [the GOP resigned to being a "Congressional party," and the entrepreneurial career-paths of Pub pols nowadays], important as they are, are not the deepest source of the GOP’s behavior. That is surely the mutation in its idea of government, a mutation that spread through the party as a whole when white Southerners flocked to it after the passage of Civil Rights laws in the mid-1960s. Until that time, the Republican Party, while “conservative” in the spectrum of American politics, largely accepted the modern state constructed by politicians — Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt — of both parties. This state tried to keep private markets free and fair, and imposed minimum standards for the safety and welfare of workers; it sought a stable currency; and it insisted on the equal citizenship of racial, religious, and ethnic minorities. More recently, it worked to extend this status to groups defined variously by gender and/or sexuality.

Republicans might be suspicious of some of these aspirations, and more inclined than Democrats to urge caution and restraint, but in general they regarded the modern state as a necessary compromise with modern life. This began to change in response to the racial and cultural politics of the 1960s. The white Southerners who bolted the Democratic Party for the GOP didn’t view the modern state as a necessity; they saw it as apostasy. It wasn’t a pragmatic compromise with the changed landscape of modernity, but a monstrous conspiracy to replace true American values with a spurious and corrupt humanism. In doing so, it sought to blot out God-given distinctions between the races and the sexes — and between the productive and the unproductive — in the name of an artificial equality that would both require and justify constant Federal intrusion.

<snip>

This is the party of Georgia boy Newt Gingrich, who dismissed Kansas Sen. Robert Dole, an old-school Robert Taft Republican, as “a tax collector for the welfare state.” It’s the party of Tennessee’s Martha Blackburn, a House member who hailed the 2013 government shutdown because it would show Americans “they can live with a lot less government than what they thought they needed.” It’s the party of Joe Wilson, the South Carolina congressman who shouted “You lie!” at President Obama during a 2009 speech, and of former Texas governor Rick Perry, who peppers his speeches with references to secession and “states’ rights.” This Republican Party shows little interest in the norms that have defined American politics because it has only contempt for the state those norms are designed to sustain.

Full of scorn for their own government, the ideologues who control today’s GOP feel free to disregard any limitation on their pursuit of conservative purity. The letter to Iran, and the invitation to Netanyahu, merely enact this principle in the realm of foreign affairs. The real concern of the Tea Party isn’t the modern American state, which it despises, but its own hermetic vision of the conservative “cause”– a cause that transcends national boundaries. Its adherents find it easier to cooperate with the leader of Israel’s Likud Party than with their Democratic colleagues in the American Congress. Tom Cotton’s dispatch to Tehran — or something like it — was the inevitable outcome of the process set in motion by Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. We should expect more of the same in the future.

 

[RobDownSouth]

Vette et al are all deflecting, because they know Congress cannot interject themselves into on going treaty negotiations, which the 47 just did.

Chickenshit McFatass has hated America and its Constitution since 1973, when they denied him a victory parade for coming in second place in the Vietnam games.