GOP Now Thinks ‘Read the Bill’ is a Political Cheap Shot
That’s what House GOPer from South Carolina, Mark Sanford just said. He argues you have staff to do that. Pretty sure that’s not what he was saying in 2010. Then there was outrage that ‘No one has read the bill.’
I guess only since did they learn there’s actually staff to read it. Of course, ‘read the bill’ in a sense always was a cheapshot. It’s more legitimate now as this is the GOP’s own cheapshot.
While in reality no one person ever ‘reads the bill’ when it’s this large and of such scope, you should be broadly informed of what it is and what it does. Many House GOPers voted on something they had no clue about.
How many millions will lose their care? We don't know as GOP rushes vote w/o CBO score. For the "read the bill crowd", a shocking hypocrisy. https://t.co/ZFwsL6ikxd
— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) May 4, 2017
Indeed, they voted for the wrong reasons-to get Trump a win, to prove the House GOP could pass something. .
But to not even wait to see a CBO score is criminal. What was the rush? Obviously, they would have lost some votes if these GOPers actually saw just how bad the carnage really is. Carnage being a word Trump likes to use.
UPDATE: Another GOPer not reading the bill.
— The Hill (@thehill) May 5, 2017
TrumpCare 1.0 cost 24 million people including 14 million on Medicaid their health insurance-during the campaign Trump had promised not to touch Medicaid.
TrumpCare 3.0 is considerably worse. But Trump’s ability to lie outrageously has served him well until now. Like his successful trolling of the Bernie Left.
Trump praises Australia's Universal Health Care, guts our shit system to line his own pockets. He can burn in hell. pic.twitter.com/akgrPWqvU7
— Keith Olbermann (@KeithOlbermann) May 5, 2017
During the campaign he played this game too-of seeming to suggest that single payer would be the best system. This is pure trolling folks. He doesn’t mean a word of it. But even now with what he did yesterday, I suspect some Bernie Bros still have hope for him for his-entirely phony-praise of Australia’s UHC.
The wonders of voter fragmentation, Roger Stone style:
“I don’t think Stone ever says what policy he is for in this memoir, and he might well consider a focus on policy a distraction. There is only winning and losing an election, and five methods for achieving a victory recur again and again in races that Stone is involved with, four methods that create a mirror maze of confusion, misdirection, and elimination. The first is through association, by having a candidate receive an endorsement from a person or group who potential supporters of the candidate are predisposed to view as an opponent, or through association with something unquestionably malevolent made via protesters, pamphlets, or other means funded by Stone’s campaign but without any fingerprints. The second is by having a group, funded by allied interests, oppose a candidate or policy due to some larger moral principle that everyone can agree on – the issue is not candidate A versus B, but opposition to crime, gambling, or child abuse. The third is the smear, saying your opponent is corrupt, weak, racist, a rapist, a murderer, a pedophile, always helpfully done not through you, the opponent on which this tar might stick, but through a phantom proxy. This last is used very, very often by Stone. The fourth, and one of the most effective, is through fragmentation of the vote. There is, say, overwhelming support for candidate A, who will raise the minimum wage, versus candidate B, who won’t. You split this overwhelming vote by funding another candidate, who wants to raise the minimum wage even higher, and who chastises candidate A for compromising their principles and being beholden to business interests for not asking for a higher wage. Through a vote split, candidate B, the one who says he believes the condition of workers must be improved, but not through easy sounding solutions like a higher minimum wage, scores a victory. At the same time, you make great efforts to keep the votes for your own candidate or issue from being fragmented. The fifth is vote suppression, of black and latino voters, who tend to poll democrat. The first four have been employed in elections that Stone has been involved in, with Stone often taking credit. The fifth has been employed alongside Stone’s efforts, though perhaps without the collusion of Stone.”
Stone actually did dabble in five this election-his tweets to Guccifer 2.0, his claim before the election that the election would be rigged against Trump-Julian Assange also pushed that same active measure.
But as noted above, number four-voter fragmentation is always a big one. We saw that in 2016 with Bernie with $15 MW, HRC at $12, and Trump with ‘wages are too high.’
The Berners were much more outraged at $12 than ‘wages are too high’-and just as the strategy calls for, they blamed it on her alleged being a shill for business interests. The same thing happened with healthcare.
1. Bernie demanded single payer to prove your a True Progressive.
2. Hillary called for public option and enabling Medicare negotiate.
3. Trump said eliminate ObamaCare and ‘get rid of state lines.’ But he also intimated a few times that he thinks the ideal system is single payer.
4. Punchline: Berners were much more outraged over 2 than 3.
And as a policy outcome we’re at 3. Just like we now have Neil Gorsuch.
All this because Berners didn’t get that 2016 was not a change election-not every election can be a change election.
You see, 2008 was the change election. 2016 was the consolidation election. But the Berners didn’t get that. So now we have the threat of TrumpCare and Neil Gorsuch.
P.S. As we saw in my poll out last week, the long awaited poll results are in, and right now I’m just 11 points down vs. Peter King (GOP-NY-District 2). And the voters don’t even know who I am yet.
There is nothing more important in getting answers to Trump-Russia collusion than a Democratic House in 2019. Please donate to help me in my part of the effort to fight for a Dem House.
Thank you. We must have a Dem House. And so, we will.