Report: Tea party Republicans given veto power over deal to avert shutdown

[kpete]

A senior Senate Democratic aide tells me that in today’s private meeting at the White House, Speaker John Boehner signaled to the President and to Harry Reid that Republicans were not willing to support any budget compromise that can’t garner the votes of 218 Republicans in the House. That would be a break from the GOP’s previous posture: Republican leaders had appeared willing to reach a deal that could pass the House with Republican and Democratic support, even if it meant losing some Republicans.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/gop-has-again-moved-goalposts-for-budget-compromise-dems-say/2011/03/03/AF5wrIkC_blog.html


A few minutes ago, Harry Reid went public with the accusation. It's a huge deal—unless Boehner backs down, he's basically given tea party Republicans veto power over any proposal that would prevent a government shutdown. The problem is obvious: tea party Republicans want a government shutdown. And with veto power, they will get what they want: a shutdown.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/05/963706/-Report:-Tea-party-Republicans-given-veto-power-over-deal-to-avert-shutdown

[Drale]

1. Whelp we are royally fucked then

ain't we?

[GoCubsGo]

2. We got royally fucked a long, long time ago.

It's all just finally coming to a head now.

[Blue Meany]

3. If that's his position, I guess Obama had better declare martial

law to keep the govt. open, because that's unlikely to ever happen with this crew.

[Turbineguy]

6. He can use all those

powers republicans granted Bush.

[walldude]

4. Why do I feel like we are living in the movie The Experiment

with Politicians as the guards and the people as the prisoners?

[Wounded Bear]

5. Yep......minority rules again.....nt

[gratuitous]

7. So, the will of the people is supplanted by the whim of the Speaker?

Gee, I remember when that sort of thing really got some folks exercised. They went to town hall meetings held by representatives and shouted down everyone else. They went parading around various town squares on their government benefits-paid scooters, carrying firearms and signs about bloodshed. Oh, the media couldn't cover them enough!

Now? Oooh listen: Crickets!

[damntexdem]

8. OK, Dems, that means that there can't be a deal.

So stop dealing and start bracing the country for another GOP-inspired disaster.

Start screaming about it, campaigning on it, and don't let anyone forget until November 2012.

[999998th word]

9. That pot is getting ever hotter.

[Old and In the Way]

10. We don't even know what the consequences of such a reckless act would be.

Here's one probable consequence: watch the international markets dump dollars in a hurry.

[emulatorloo]

11. I think you are right about that probable consequence. n/t

[KamaAina]

12. Can we shut down the wars, too?

Please??

[Blue Meany]

17. No. That might actually lower the deficit; then there would

be no excuse for impoverishing the rest of us.

[lumberjack_jeff]

13. Make. Them. Kill. The. Hostages.

They escalate each time we rescue these assholes from carrying through with their threats.

Each time, the stakes get higher.

[emulatorloo]

14. Need to be on the greatest page for more eyes. Recommending n/t

[TheKentuckian]

15. Stop negotiating with terrorists you bunch of chump ass, complicit, sucker motherfuckers!

Anyone who thinks we are going to eventually find ourselves having a real negotiation is nutty as Virginia Foxx with the heart of an especially tender and naive toddler.

[Rex]

16. So, can we fire them all for not being qualified to do their assigned duties?

We really need a way for a populist vote of 'no-confidence' in this country for certain professionals unwilling to do their dam job!

FIRE THE FUCKERS...out of a cannon!