So I suppose the question of the day.  For the next 15 minutes of flimsy political oriented diversion.   Is it a scandal if a politician sends text messages to a stripper… and there’s nothing particularly sexual in the comments?  Oh, who knows?

Your note of sourness of a longtime Republican Congressional figure who has announced retirement.

He also discussed their hold on Speaker John A. Boehner. “He withstood the pressure for a long time,” he told the Tampa Bay Times last week. “He finally has agreed to the outspoken minority of his conference. And they’re pretty much in charge right now.”

And then there’s the inevitable “tea leaves partisan angling messaging”:

The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee said in a statement that Young’s departure “should serve as a wake-up call to Speaker Boehner and House Republicans: If they continue to cave to the tea party’s radical demands and threaten the country’s financial stability, they will see even their own members jump off their sinking ship.”

Sure.  Sure.  But mostly… HE’S BEEN IN THE HOUSE FOR 22 TERMS.  Or… 44 Years.  Since 1970.  Back in the the Richard goddamned Milhous Nixon Administration.

So, your notes from the “Congressional Shutdown“.  On the supposed “Republican Hopefuls of 2016” front:  Marco Rubio is “repairing the damage” to his grassroots conservative base caused by pushing through Immigration Reform by standing next to Ted Cruz a lot.  Bobby Jindal is “repairing the damage” to his grassroots conservative base caused by penning editorials challenging the party not to be “the stupid party” (which I thought might have already been accomplished by penning more editorials that were flat out stupid) by not joining other governors calling this shutdown insane.  And Chris Christie is trying to capitalize on how the act is dragging down the poll numbers of Washington Politicians in general even as it plummets Republicans in specific by using a new anti-Washington hash-tag in his daily tweets.  Jeb Bush is doing the same tut tutting as Christie is, just not on twitter.

As for Congressional actions.  Interesting to note the name of the 18 Republicans Boehner allowed out of the “all 232” who Obama invited to meet with.  But more interesting to see who the twenty-six Democrats who are set to attend a bipartisan event with the group “No Labels”.

Looking over to the website, and with these 26 Democrats joining 24 Republicans, this appears to be the spearhead  of the brilliant “keep the shutdown going for another six days* but don’t default” idea.

I’m curious to see a list of these politicians, but a google search isn’t bringing up anything.

So.  We are at that point where the Daily Show with Jon Stewart does the “meta” thing, where the correspondent just breaks off the talk with the Republican Representative and explains why he can’t go through this highly predictable bit.  (The rest of the piece is pretty much null.  Best to leave it at the point of exhaustion.)

The game marches forth.

“Finally, the White House has invited congressional leaders to talk,” Hal Rogers, R-Ky., said in a statement. “I am hopeful the president is serious about finding a deal that results in meaningful spending and entitlement reforms, judiciously extends U.S. government borrowing authority, reopens all federal agencies, and paves the way for the enactment of future appropriations bills so that this lurching from crisis to crisis can be put to an end.”

Ye know.  Long term problems and this issue… are only made crisis by this initiative.   Or, cue Tom Coburn who calls for the “Managed Catastrophe“.

And the beat goes on.

* Yeah, I know. 6 weeks.  Same difference, and it’ll be lost in the meantime.

For the past couple weeks, I’ve been aware of this “Right Wing Trucker Plot” to jam the traffic in the nation’s capital and then — er… Citizens Arrest all the members of Congress for a litany of complaints stretching from the Debt down to Benghazi.

Also Glenn Beck has backed it.

Didn’t really seem plausible a thing that might happen.  And I guess it wasn’t.

“The comments to U.S. News were designed to do one thing and one thing only: stir the feather of the mainstream media,” said Conlon, a father of three. “Nothing gets the attention of the mainstream media like some sort of disastrous threat. I knew it was going to ruffle some feathers.”
So while thousands of truckers may indeed come to Washington on Friday and many of them may travel along the inner loop of the Beltway, honking their horns, they won’t intentionally shut down traffic, he said.
“First of all, we know it would not be right to go to D.C. to lock down the city by the Belt loop,” said Conlon, 50, a veteran truck driver who has suffered through more than his share of traffic jams. “That wouldn’t be fair to the people there.”

Er.  The message is lost.  Sometimes when you see someone making stupid obnoxious act, you just don’t care what the motivation is.

Yeah, I know.  They want to send the message of … I guess… “They may take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom”, if you must…

“I mean, they seem to think that we will miss this opportunity for a ‘Braveheart’ moment to do the right thing for the American people and that we’ll back down for fear of losing the House and not gaining control of the Senate,” Gingrey said.
The 1995 movie is based on William Wallace, who died in the 14th century after fighting in the Wars of Scottish Independence for Scotland’s freedom. “They may take our lives, but they’ll never take our freedom!” he bellows during the film’s most famous scene.
Gingrey has used the “Braveheart” analogy before. In December 2011, he made a similar reference on Fox News during a fight over a short-term extension of payroll tax cuts. He said tea party members were rallying around House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) during that showdown, despite reports that they were attempting to force his hand.

I’m waiting for the Pokemon 2000 moment myself.

“Life can be a challenge. Life can seem impossible. It’s never easy when there’s so much on the line. But you and I can make a difference. There’s a mission just for you and me.” 

Now that the event has been called off, I guess the next opportunity for the truckers, or — maybe people who can rent, borrow, or steal a truck for the purpose of this political demonstration — to make their point is…

November 19.  Millions will flood outside the White House and demand Obama leave.  To be replaced by… Jerry Boykin, I guess?
Frankly, I like the Wall Street Plot against Franklin Roosevelt better.  At least that one would’ve given us Smedley Butler.

Hey!  Scott Lively is running for Governor in Massachusetts!

These are very dark days in Massachusetts and across America, and growing steadily darker. I believe it is time for Christians with a strong Biblical worldview to rise up and preach the whole truth of the Bible as widely and boldly as possible. Massachusetts is the bluest of the blue states: the first to adopt socialized medicine and “gay marriage,” the national model for promoting homosexuality to children in the public schools, and the most aggressive defender of child-killing through abortion. The Mass Republican Party is solidly controlled by moderate to liberal “progressives” and the Democrats are virtual communists. They both embrace and champion the culture of death. With these two liberal parties splitting the liberal vote, a true conservative independent could win the governorship.

Not apt to be elected, this is just to send a message.

“Massive Resistance“:

The South Carolina state House passed a bill Wednesday that declares President Obama’s Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act to be “null and void,” and criminalizes its implementation.
The state’s Freedom of Health Care Protection Act intends to “prohibit certain individuals from enforcing or attempting to enforce such unconstitutional laws; and to establish criminal penalties and civil liability for violating this article.”

That’s South Carolina for you.  Somehow this does eke into your your weird “Rebirth of the Old Confederacy” tact.  See too:

Ed Kilgore noted that “Republican House members from districts with poor and black folks—or next door to heavily poor and black areas—are very likely to be more savagely opposed to Obamacare than anyone else.” And that is not a bug, it’s a feature. 

In case the South Carolina Legislator doesn’t go far enough for you, a date has been set for the Revolution!

On November 19, 2013, a day that will hopefully live on in the history of our once great republic, I call upon millions of Americans who have been appalled and disgusted by Obama’s criminality – his Muslim, socialist, anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, anti-white, pro-illegal immigrant, pro-radical gay and lesbian agenda – among other outrages, to descend on Washington, D.C., en masse, and demand that he leave town and resign from office if he does not want to face prison time.

I further propose that we borrow the techniques perfected and used by such epic crusaders such as Mahatma Gandhi, to show Obama and his enablers that the American people are more than fed up and will not take it any more. The millions who are being summoned to our nation’s capital should, like Gandhi did in India and South Africa, peacefully shut the city down, by blocking roads and massing in front of the White House chanting for Obama to get out of our nation’s capital. In addition, I propose bringing the victims of his reign of terror to a podium across from the White House in Lafayette Park to give their testimony on how he has singularly severely harmed and in some instances even killed their loved ones through his actions.

Who are the Millions?

 Tea partiers, bikers, construction workers, police officers, school teachers, farmers, truckers, clergy, housewives, husbands, students, doctors, lawyers and all elements of our society who see our nation slipping away into the abyss, must now stand tall and descend on the capital, much like the Egyptians recently did in ousting another radical Muslim, their then president Mohammed Morsi. 

Comes all into place around here, I … guess?

On the September 30 episode of his Prophetic Perspectives on Current Events TV show, Joyner said:
“We’re headed for serious tyranny. I think we’ve been used in some wonderful and powerful ways by God. We’ve been one of the most generous nations in history. We’ve done so much good. And that’s why I appeal to the Lord: Don’t let us be totally destroyed. Please, raise up those who will save us. And as I start telling friends from a long time that no election’s going to get the right person in there that can restore us because the system is so broken, so undermined right now — the whole system. I believe our only hope is a military takeover — martial law. And that the most crucial element of that is who to the martial [marshal?] is going to be. I believe there are noble leaders in our military that love the republic and love everything we stand for. And they could seize the government.”
Scary, huh? And what makes it even scarier is that a frequent guest on Rick Joyner’sProphetic Perspectives on Current Events and other shows is none other that retired 3-star general Jerry Boykin, the same retired general who met with Pentagon officials a couple of weeks ago as a representative of one of the primary organizations in the so-called Restore Military Religious Freedom Coalition. In fact, Boykin was the guest on Joyner’s Prophetic Perspectives on Current Events for four of the five episodes in the week leading up to his September 30 proposal for a military takeover of the government.

Hm.  Leave it to the “oldest continuously published newspaper” for Utah to stick Rick Joyner’s opinion in a round-up of religious leaders’ opinions.

Surely there can be a compromise between these two extremes?

Like… elect a Jesse Ventura / Howard Stern ticket… a publicity or vanity campaign, to be sure, but then again… that’s what they said when Ventura ran for governor.

I’m listening to The Dead Milkmen album, er, “Beelzebubba” — hadn’t done so in years.  And this may be subtle, but I think I see an early advocating of gay marriage.

There it is.  Last line in what’s pegged here as the fourth stanza.

(blink).
What?
Preceding as this does “Stuart”, who knows?

Yep!  There is a bit of that Moby Dick here at this point.

Comments made by Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) last weekunderscore Ross’ suggestion that many Republicans believe what’s at stake is no longer a matter of policy but one of pride.  
“We’re not going to be disrespected … We have to get something out of this. And I don’t know what that even is,” Stutzman said.
The Indiana Republican later apologized, saying he had “carelessly misrepresented” the budget debate.

Cue Richard Hofstadter.

A great deal of pseudo-conservative thinking takes the form of trying to devise means of absolute protection against the betrayal of our own officialdom which the pseudo-conservative feels is always imminent.  The Bricker Amendment, indeed, might be taken as one of the primary symptoms of the pseudo-conservatism.  Every dissenting movement brings its demand for Constitutional changes; and the pseudo-conservative revolt, far from being an exception to this principle, seems to specialize in Constitutional revision, at least as a speculative enterprise.  The widespread latent hostility toward American institutions takes the form, among other things, of a flood of proposals to write drastic changes into the body of our fundamental law.  Last summer, in a characteristically astute piece, Richard Rovere pointed out that Constitution amending had become almost a major diversion in the Eighty-third Congress.  About a hundred amendments were introduced and referred to committee.  Several of these called for the repeal of the income tax.  Several embodied formulas of various kinds to limit non-military expenditures to some fixed portion of the national income.  One proposed to bar all federal expenditures on the “general welfare”‘  another to prohibit American troops from serving in any foreign country except on the soil of the potential enemy; another, to redefine treason to embrace not only persons trying to overthrow the government but also those trying to “weaken” it, even by peaceful means.  The last proposal might bring the pseudo-conservative rebels themselves under the ban of treason:  for the sum of these amendments might easily serve to bring the whole structure of American society crashing to the ground.

As Mr. Rovere points out, it is not unusual for a large number of Constitutional amendments to be lying about somewhere in the Congressional hoppers.  What is unusual is the readiness the Senate has shown to give them respectful consideration, and the peculiar populistic arguments some of its leading members have used to justify referring them to the state legislatures.  While the ordinary Congress hardly ever has occasion to consider more than one amendment, the Eighty-third Congress saw six Constitutional amendments brought to the floor of the Senate, all summoning simple majorities, and four winning the to-thirds majority necessary before they can be sent to the House and ultimately to the state legislatures.  It must be added that, with the possible exception of the Bricker Amendment itself, none of the six amendments can be classed with the extreme proposals.  But the pliability of the senators, the eagerness of some of them to pass the buck and defer to “the people of the country,” suggests how strong they feel the pressure to be for some kind of change that will give expression to that vague desire to repudiate the past that underlies the pseudo-conservative revolt.

Cue Peter Vierick

Unless one of two unexpected events occurs, the Republican Party has forfeited its claim to retain in 1956 those decisive votes of non-partisan independents which gave it victory in 1952.  The unexpected events are either a far firmer assertion of presidential leadership over the anti-Eisenhower barn-burner and wild men in the Senate, or else their secession into a radical third party.  If either of these blessings occurs, there will again be good reason for independents to vote for Eisenhower: on moral grounds if he asserts his leadership, on strategic grounds if there is a McCarthy third party.  The latter would save the Republicans in the same unexpected way that the secession of pro-Communists into the Progressive Party saved Truman in 1948.

[If not, everyone should vote for the intellectuals’ hero of the 1950s, Adlai the Odd.]

Why did these two excerpts from this book pop out at me?  Start with radio host — impossibly shrill — Mark Levin.  He has a book, which … well… Utah Senator Mike Lee had to answer for at a town-hall meeting.  (A bit more here.)  It is an oligarch’s dream of a new constitutional, put out in some populist notes.

The other reason… sort of a weird random exchange between liberal magazine blogs (New Republic to Washington Monthly)… about hypothetical — and I’d say hypothetical hypotheticals at that — on what might happen if an Eisenhowerish Republicanism broke free of a third party Tea Party “Wallace” Republicanism.  Which is about as insane as conjuring up an Adlai Stevenson Presidency with the break up of a Joseph McCarthy third party.