CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(R) Dave Williams



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 01, 2013 12:40 PM UTC

Cantor's Poignant Demonstration of Empty Shutdown Rhetoric

  • by: ProgressiveCowgirl

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) today served up two scoops of delicious irony, and perhaps the best illustration possible of the difference between bluster and policymaking. From Cantor's Twitter feed:

Except, they were actually setting up for a press conference. Hence the half-table left empty for media microphones.

The Colbert skit writes itself, doesn't it?


42 thoughts on “Cantor’s Poignant Demonstration of Empty Shutdown Rhetoric

  1. Boo Hoo. The  Dem controlled Senate's been offering to sit down since April. Now that they've shut down the government and still not stopped the ACA roll out, suddenly they just want polite, reasonable negotiations.  Not so much fun when you're the one getting scorched by your own scorched earth policies, is it?  Screw you, Cantor. 

    1. Staged photos aren't inherently wrong, but how BAD the GOP is at them is inherently funny, from Ted Cruz staging a photo of a chess game that ended up revealing he doesn't know where the chess pieces go to this, where he couldn't be bothered to stage his twitpic somewhere he wasn't about to obviously use for a press conf.

        1. No, considering that Boehner used a different angle of the same photo with a similar caption later in the day, it's pretty obviously a House Republican messaging strategy that was deliberately staged in the same area they were setting up for the presser. "OK guys, get the empty chairs in there for us to take the 'Democrats not at the table' photo, then we'll move the chairs and bring the press in."

          What a cynical piece of message-twisting in the middle of a crisis. Not to mention lazy. 

    2. Negotiating with the House is no different than negotiating with North Korea.  We're ready to negotiate/temper tantrum/we're ready to negotiate/I want my way/we're ready to negotiate/fuck off.

      Your welcome Moderatus.

    3. Sure, if "negotiation" means accepting all of the House's conditions first.  And even then, can you show that they have negotiated in good faith since 2011?

    4. What is so funny about your post is that nobody is buying what you're selling. Well, to be fair, there are still grumpy old white guys watching Fox. But outside that? You're screwed. 

      Say hello to Speaker Pelosi.

    5. You're kidding, right? The Affordable Healthcare Act (AHA) was passed four years ago. The Republicans have been in control of the House since 2010. If they have amendments that improve the law, why haven't they introduced them in bill form, passed them through the House and sent them to the U.S. Senate for consideration over the last four years? President Obama himself has suggested revisions, but on every single occassion over the past four years, the Republicans only response, aside from the recent one year delay proposal, is a demand for complete repeal. It is ridiculous, to assert the Republicans are ready to negotiate. If they were sincere, they would have been working with the President and the Senate for literally years ago.

      Why did they wait until the last minute and only offered two amendments? One to terminate the AHA and one to delay the mandate for one year. Both are simply all or nothing proposals that cannot even be remotely characterized as compromises.

      Rep. Issa (R-CA) said on CNN this morning that the Republicans want to delay the AFA for a year because in his words: "It isn't ready for prime time." Great, that implies the Republicans have specific proposals to amend the AFA to make it a better program. What are they? Why haven't the Republicans made those proposals not only to the Senate but to us, the American people? So far, the Republicans haven't suggested any amendments to the AHA except out right repeal or a one year delay.

      The Republican position is nonsense. I worked on the "Hill" years ago and legislation, especially major legislation, isn't suddenly passed or repealed based on a continuing resolution to fund the government. Bills, including amendments to existing laws or outright repeal, go through the appropriate subject matter committee(s), then to the other house and then to conference committee. For example, no Republican that represents a rural farm district would ever support a sudden repeal of all farm subsidy programs without due consideraiton which is exactly what the committee system is designed to do. Why haven't the Republicans been working on this through committees for literally years.

      The Republican position on the AHA that they are trying to compromise is silly, at best. No legislator at the federal level or the state level would realistically suggest that major programs be repealed or significantly restricted without due consideration.

      The Republican Party is dying. Its never ending insistence that its their way or the highway presents the American people with a choice. Forget the Democrats, forget who is President, because none of that matters. The Republican Party is demanding that we the American people make a choice but they insist that our only choice is their way, no amendments, no deviations from iron-clad ideology. That isn't representative government in a democratic republic. When presented in those terms, I don't think the Republicans are going to like the choice we will make. 

          1. First of all, a one year delay of the individual is not unreasonable. Obama has already granted that to businesses. Why should citizens not get the same courtesy?

            Secondly, if the administration had ever once shown a willingness to truly negotiate, which they have not, Republicans would certainly have offered more concessions. If Obama comes back to the table, they certainly will again. Why would anyone make offers when the other side is offering nothing in return? That's the situation Republicans are in today.

            1. Do ever read a newspaper? Boehner has said repeatedly that the only course of action is a full repeal. What could Republicans possibly do in a year that they weren't able to do in the past 4 years?

            2. Please answer the questions. Your attempt to blame the President moves the discussion no where. 

              First, the way to build support for an amendment is to go public with what you want to do and then build the political support to acheive it. The Republicans have done nothing of the kind over the past four years.

              Second, you say the President won't negotiate but until two days ago, the Republicans only position for the past four years was complete repeal. That can't be characterized as a negotiating position.

              Third, specifically why should the individual mandate be delayed? Lets get down into the weeds on this. The President has delayed it for some businesses, so what is the specific reason it should be delayed for individuals? In other words, what are your specific reasons, based on facts, for delaying the individual mandate?

            3. Ahem. I would like to point out the 19 time that Senate offered to conference for more than six months. House refused.

              So that ends that meme – and stop lying about it, and just take it like a man.

    6. The fact remains is that Republicans have thrown every roadblock they could think of trying to delay and defund Obamcare which is fully funded and ready to go. It went very well today, and I'm pleased to hear many Republicans checking them out and now are converts and praising Obamacare.  

      The Tea Party needs mental help, and what do you know – Obamacare provides those kinds of service!


    7. Wrong.

      The Congress has a majority of members in both houses willing to sign a clean CR and stop this shutdown immediately.  Boehner refuses to bring a clean CR to the floor.  No negotiating is necessary.  Boehner is solely responsible for the shutdown.

    8. Senate Democrats have been waiting 6 months for Republicans to negotiate on the budget – the yearly budget, not a 6-week stopgap. Republicans in both the House and Senate have been blocking that negotiation.

      And the House isn't interested in negotiating – they're interested in getting something they want in exchange for nothing Democrats want (aside from a functional government, which should be non-negotiable).

      1. You finally got one thing right . . . negotiating with terrorists is both silly and offensive.  Good day for you — you might want to mark it on your calendar.

  2. Really good article – The Nullification Party

    The president must therefore hold absolutely firm. This time, there can be no compromise because the GOP isn’t offering any. They’re offering the kind of constitutional surrender that would effectively end any routine operation of the American government. If we cave to their madness, we may unravel our system of government, something one might have thought conservatives would have opposed. Except these people are not conservatives. They’re vandals.

    1. Another good one – The Reign of Morons Is Here

      "We have elected an ungovernable collection of snake-handlers, Bible-bangers, ignorami, bagmen and outright frauds, a collection so ungovernable that it insists the nation be ungovernable, too. We have elected people to govern us who do not believe in government."

  3. Note to Moderatus:

    The fundamental problem here is not that the GOP would like to kill the ACA. That's politics. The GOP has tried to kill Social Security at times. THat's their viewpoint and they should try to pass legislation to do so.

    But that's not what's going on here. What's been going on for the last 4 years is a minority in our system, one house of Congress, has repeatedly taken the entire economy hostage, time after time, over issue after issue.

    That's not governing.

    1. Not even the whole House majority in this case. This particular sad incident is the work of a minority of one party in one half of one branch of government. They don't speak for all the Americans who, whether they liked ACA or not, decided to vote for Obama instead of the guy who swore to stop it. They didn't elect a majority from the party that swore to stop it to the Senate. They even, in spite of all the gerrymandering, voted fewer, though still a majority, from the party that swore to end it into the House than they did in the 2010 election. 

      So even if ACA never polled that well, the majority voted to accept it when they voted in 2012 for a government that certainly wasn't going to end it.

      The GOPT hates the democratic process. 

    2. Unfortunately, it's even worse than that. If House leadership were to allow open votes on whatever bills had strong support, the government would be open today under the clean continuing resolution.

      The House itself is dysfunctional in part because its Tea Party caucus holds power by threatening the positions of leadership. I'd support an offer by House Democrats to support GOP leadership in leadership votes in exchange for more open bill acceptance – give Republicans incentive to marginalize the Tea Party extremist minority just to get things moving again.

    1. And just look at all that diversity. The thing is, this is not just what they think America should look like.  It's what, to them, America does look like.

      Minorities aren't real Americans and women don't really belong at the table when the men are making important decisions. Oh sure they keep a few around to prove (or pretend) they aren't throw backs to the 19th century but when you seat any important panel you can't bother with those "others". 

      When they say they represent ordinary Americans this is a perfect illustration of what ordinary Americans look like to them. If you aren't white and male then you're just a member of some weird little special interest group.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

39 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!