Bernie Sanders’ first ad. It is relatively good. But the slogan at the end, “A Future to Believe in,” sounds very familiar.
Paul Ryan’s rise to House speaker “is fanning hopes that a once-in-a-generation tax overhaul might be on the horizon,” Politico reports.
“The Wisconsin Republican who claimed the gavel last week is one of Congress’ preeminent tax experts, an ardent advocate of rewriting the code with lots of ideas on how to do it… But now Ryan has far more power to put the issue on Washington’s agenda — and the latest budget deal between congressional leaders and the White House should give him ample room to launch his speakership without being distracted by constant battles over funding the government and raising the debt limit.”
“We fight over tactics because we don’t have a vision. We’ve been too timid on policy; we’ve been too timid on vision — we have none.” — House Speaker Paul Ryan, quoted by the Washington Post, on the Republican Party’s problems.
GOP strategist Mary Matalin says she was “flummoxed” by Jeb Bush’s performance at last week’s GOP debate, The Hill reports.
Said Matalin: “My money right now is on Ted Cruz. Again, I’m unaligned, but I think he speaks to the myriad factions of conservatism: Constitutionalists, Libertarians, the social conservatives.”
Brian Beutler reveals that the questions CNBC asked at their Republican debate were extremely substantive:
There’s no denying that the moderators lost control of the debate at times. But it is impossible to claim that CNBC—the network that employs Rick Santelli, who helped galvanize the Tea Party—is part of the “liberal media.” As for the allegation that the questions were frivolous … judge for yourself. I compiled all 46 questions from Wednesday night from Time’s transcript. If you consolidate follow-ups, or double-count single questions asked of multiple candidates, you might come up with a different number, but this is pretty close to every question. Among them, I counted [deep breath] …
… Two questions about the feasibility of Donald Trump’s policy agenda, six questions about taxes, two questions about Marco Rubio’s Senate attendance record, one question about the causes of Bush’s struggles, two questions about Carly Fiorina’s business record, three questions about the recent budget deal, two questions about Social Security, one question about Trump’s business record, one question about pharmaceutical prices, one question about corporate prosecutions, one question about the internet sales tax, one question about Marco Rubio’s financial difficulties, one question (and follow-up) about the Export-Import Bank, one equal-pay question, one question about equal rights, one question about Ben Carson’s business associates, two questions about H1-B visas, one question about the Federal Reserve, one question about federal subsidies, one question about inequality, one question about pot legalization, two questions about gun control, one question about Trump’s moral values, one question about retirement, one question about student loans, one question about gambling, one question about climate change, three questions about Medicare.
Brian Beutler also wrote about the consequences of the GOP’s Grotesque Festival of Lies:
The darkest moment of the 2012 campaign for President Obama was the first of his three debates with Mitt Romney, the Republican nominee. Obama was rusty and under-prepared, which contributed to his poor showing that night, but a big reason he lost the plot so badly is that the Mitt Romney he had prepared to debate was a composite of public statements, briefing papers, and other documentation from the past. The Romney who showed up was a shapeshifter adapting to his immediate circumstances.
So when Obama attacked Romney, accurately, for proposing to cut taxes on the affluent so dramatically that the middle class would have to pick up the tab, Romney simply and dishonestly denied this was the case.
Obama pointed out the discrepancy, but by that point the debate might as well have been over. Or at least it had transformed into something other than a debate. The shared premise disappeared, and the vast majority of people watching had no way of knowing who was right and who was wrong and how brazenly Romney had lied.
In the days afterward, Romney struggled badly to defend his tax plan, but by wide acclaim, he outperformed Obama that night.
Maybe our definition of the Republican presidential contest is a little off. It’s often cast, accurately enough, as a choice between “outsiders” and “insiders.” But another party division may be more profound — between Republicans who still view the country’s future hopefully and those deeply gloomy about its prospects.
The pessimism within significant sectors of the GOP is more than the unhappiness partisans typically feel when the other side is in power. It’s rooted in a belief that things have fundamentally changed in America, and there is an ominous possibility they just can’t be put right again.
This is one of the big contrasts between the two parties: Democrats are more bullish on the future.
The things that cannot be put right are not our economy or standing in the world, etc. Rather, affordable universal healthcare is an idea that is here to stay. Marriage equality is here to stay. You can’t discriminate anymore, against anyone. Racism is openly and vehemently exposed and attacked. Women and minorities no longer know their place. Yes, the idealized Conservative America of the 1950s is gone forever. Destroyed. And that is a wonderful thing to celebrate, if you are a good person.
Many Republicans, however, are not good people.