Drudge Suggests Obama Blackmailed Boehner to Get Funding Bill Passed

boehner-frown-obama
Politico reported after Obama’s 2012 victory that “30-year-old old think tanker and writer Ben Domenech” observed how “The right is suffering from an era of on-demand reality.” Of course, a key purveyor of that on-demand reality is, along with Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and – the Drudge Report.

So when reality becomes too much for them to process, as when Speaker of the House John Boehner made a deal with Democrats to pass the government funding bill after Republicans got complete control of Congress, meaning they couldn’t possibly ever have to compromise again and could dictate that on-demand reality to the nation’s first black president, well….

We weren’t supposed to have a functioning government going into 2015. This was supposed to be Cruz Shutdown Part Deux. Yet, as we reported here, Democrats Score Major Win For Obama Nominees While Passing Government Funding Bill, 56-40.

Cognitive dissonance warning.

Republicans, who hate a functioning government unless it’s their government, saw it as a major Democrat win too, with Sarah Palin accusing Boehner of “carrying Obama’s water.”

Complaining that the bill doesn’t “include language prohibiting the administration from continuing to enforce the regulations it issued under Obamacare requiring almost all health-care plans in the United States to provide co-pay free coverage for sterilizations, contraceptives and abortion-inducing drugs,” CNS News claimed it “permits the administration to use money from the Treasury to enforce this regulation that forces Christians into complicity in the taking of innocent unborn human lives.”

Matt Drudge went one further, or at least one step lower, tweeting on Friday,

Which led – inevitably – to World Net Daily to asking on Sunday,

IS OBAMA BLACKMAILING BOEHNER?

“Why is Boehner enabling Obama after Republicans won more seats in the House and took control of the Senate?” WND asks. “Is it blackmail, as Drudge suggests?”

Stay tuned for the film available from the WND store, including a free ticket for the rapture.

Right. Here’s the thing:

It’s not even possible that Boehner can’t control his own caucus and faced by rabid right-wing extremist in his own ranks, had to turn to Democrats for help. You know, people from a sane caucus.

That can’t possibly be the answer (even though it is) so it must be that Obama blackmailed Boehner.

After the big headline, WND didn’t have any evidence beyond Drudge’s suggestive tweet and was left salivating instead over a promised HuffPo “bombshell exposé” dating from 2010 on Boehner and lobbyist Lisbeth Lyons.

When reality gets to be too much for you, go to the deus ex machine and watch the hated Boehner disappear in a puff of scandal.

I don’t like Boehner but I would imagine if there were anything to the rumors, Drudge or Fox News would have invented something by now.

And here’s the other thing (and going back to reality here): By no means did all Democrats support the deal. Notable exceptions include Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, and Al Franken. Even President Obama had reservations, telling reporters Friday,

This by definition was a compromise bill. This is what is produced when you have a divided government that the American people voted. Had I been able to draft my own legislation, get it passed without any Republican votes, I suspect it would be slightly different.

That is not the circumstance we find ourselves in and I think what the American people very much are looking for is responsible governance and the willingness to compromise, and that’s what we’ve clearly done.

Drudge claims Obama got everything he wanted even though he didn’t, and even though Warren denounced the bill in the strongest possible terms, saying the bill was a giveaway “for the rich and powerful” and was “literally written by Citigroup lobbyists.”

Boehner has become a walking Shakespearean tragedy in three acts, reviled on all sides, and his new $835,000 condo on Florida’s ritzy Marco Island must look increasingly attractive. There he can enjoy stunning views of rising sea levels while contemplating the fruits of corruption and his Keystone XL profits.

The rest of us, meanwhile, will soldier on, hoping simply for a functioning government in the face of unrelenting Republican obstruction. Gallup reports this morning that approval of Congress “near all-time low,” just one percentage point above last year’s record-setting low of 14 percent.

It’s safe to conclude, I think, that 2013’s record will be threatened in the coming year, and I hate to say this, but exiling Boehner to Florida isn’t going to help.

Hrafnkell Haraldsson’s new novel, Wolf Rising, is now available here on Amazon Kindle

48 Replies to “Drudge Suggests Obama Blackmailed Boehner to Get Funding Bill Passed”

  1. Another unelected official whose opinion is irrelevant. This bill only helps the 2%, not the 98%. Obama does not have to blackmail Boehner to do that.

  2. HH,how about your view on Pvt Lynndye England, the girl who held the infamous leash of prisoners. They threw her and 10 others into prison for carrying out their orders. Didn’t even pardon them, just left them there and hope nobody remembers. Cowards let a little girl go to prison rather than tell the truth.

  3. F— no, we don’t want those douches moving down here, we’ve got more then we can use already, what with Gov. Skeletor and his legislative band of Flying Monkeys……..

  4. The Nuremberg Military Tribunal established that “I was just obeying orders” doesn’t fly as an excuse for illegal behavior. If you read NBC News’ Iraq War Ten Years Later you can only leave disgusted that she doesn’t see that she did anything wrong.

    The only injustice I see here is that people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Bush, didn’t join her in prison. Power has its privileges even in the land of the free and the home of the brave. Given my druthers, she’d still be in prison, and they along with her.

  5. Want to confuse teabaggers? Just ask them what they want (for 2015 it was control of both chambers of congress) and give it to them.

    They survive on hatred of compromise and those in power will do everything their malformed brains can come up with to make complete failure the norm. Even total anarchy is too harmonious of an existence for them.

  6. The voters on the right are the personification of the founder’s reasoning for establishing a Democratic Republic rather than an all out Democracy. They knew that many would not be educated and would not be able to resist the persuasiveness of demagogues who would mislead them.

    The one thing the founders could not have anticipated is the proliferation of the modern right-wing media. Common sense is drowned out by the constant fear-mongering and unabashed destruction of the truth. My opinion is that until we subdue this media juggernaut, we will only be able to barely hang on to our Republic, if at all.

  7. Ummm…no. It has been hyped by the Left for its one provision that IS horrible, but it is quite minor, leaves Dodd-Frank and the Volcker Rule intact.

    Take a look. It has huge numbers of things to help us, to stabilize the government for two years, and to prevent any future shenanigans by the GOP desiring the end of real civilization as we wish it to be but they don’t.

    http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/2014/12/11/on-cromnibus-and-purity-pouting

    and

    http://immasmartypants.blogspot.com/2014/12/discarding-masters-tools.html

  8. We now have seen where the political parties are! There are three parties. The Progressive Party i.e. Elizabeth Warren, The Tea Party i.e. Ted Cruise, The Establishment Party i.e. ‘John Boehner, Mitch McConnell, Barach Obama, Harry Ried, and the Washington bureaucracy. If there was any doubt who the enemies of freedom are, you now have your answer!!

  9. Other than Fox News and talk radio, could you please list these right wing media outlets that are fear mongering. You and I may not disagree as much as you think, as I believe Fox tends to whip for intervention in the affairs of other nations but you do realize that we have never had a president who didn’t push the envelope of executive power to war against those he believes are threats or are in the nations interest to execute against. Might i remind you it was BHO who wanted to prosecute war in Libya, Syria, who thought the so called Arab Spring was a plus instead of the beginning of the caliphate now gaining steam in Iraq and Syria.

  10. Actually it was NATO that went after Lybia. It was John McCain who wanted war in Syria

    The Arab Spring in Egypt was not the beginning of the caliphate. Are you hooked on Glenn Beck who is dying froma new disease every month??

  11. First your use of the homophobic pejorative “Teabagger” belies your true attitude but as a supporter of the general ideals of the ‘Tea Party’ let me try to answer your question honestly. If the Tea Party were to take over the republican party, sadly, unlikely. We wish to restore the Constitution to it’s preeminent position as the Supreme law of the land. That sadly is not the current condition of the country. Power of the Federal Gov would be curtailed, power would and should be returned to the people at the local level. The communist inspired income tax would be repealed and replaced with a national sales tax, as your labor should be your own and the government should never have first access to the fruits of your labor. The if you wish to live in a communist state you could move to the workers paradise of Oregon, Washington State, California etc. you know where they are! Thus only being able to enforce your will on the like minded, such as yourself.

  12. I see you never read the supremacy clause. But being homeschooled I didn’t expect you to even know what it is

  13. Actually you are very silly.
    The tea bag leaders are pushing religion where the tea bag members think they are for small government
    The constitution is the law of the land, and I enjoiy seeing how brainwashed you are.
    The local level? Yes, just what the 1% want. You work for the 1% as the local level is vastly easier to corrupt then the Federal level.
    There are no communist states in the US. Another brain washing you need scrubbed out

    Take a second and bow towards Kansas where your owners reside.

  14. …and Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, Michael Savage, Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, Matt Drudge, Laura Ingraham, Mark Levin, Sarah Palin, Michelle Malkin, Joe Scarborough, and many others. All repeating the same talking points 24/7.

  15. Sorry Vernon, you will always be a teabagger…. You named yourself REMEMBER? until you were informed just what being a teabgger was. Sorry your still a TEABAGGER..I LOL at you unfortunate discomfort but…you asked for it…..

  16. Well Vernon, I don’t guess I need to point out the errors in your post, or in your beliefs. It would seem that my good friends here have given you a little head-start on your education.

    I hope you try to take the time to learn just how badly misinformed you are, and to take the time to search for the truth.

    It may be easier to go to Fox propaganda network, or some of the myriad other right-wing outlets, but you might enjoy you’re life more if you were living in the light.

  17. Ha, Ha, Ha. Read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers. The Tea Party and everyone in it is a minion for the Koch Bros who started it. Just keep bowing to the Koch Bros, repeat what they say and you are nothing more than a pimple on a gnat’s a$$.

  18. Do you really think that anyone blackmailing anyone in Washington for anything would be unusual?

  19. Well, it might be ok. I’m a big fan of tasteful graffiti, and it would look good on all their multimillion bucks new houses, doncha think???

  20. Reading and understanding the supremacy clause are two different things.

    The supremacy clause states that federal laws are the supreme law of the land, but such laws may only govern to the extent the states have delegated legislative power to the federal government through the Constitution.

    History has shown that centralization of power is inevitable in any republic and, unfortunately, the safeguards placed in the Constitution to prevent this (the 10th Amendment, and the limited enumerated powers granted to the federal government) are being ignored by activist liberals in order to promote their agenda.

    It is completely bizarre to hear a liberal espouse the Constitution, because the Constitution is an impediment to the liberal agenda.

    The people you deride as “teabaggers” are far more educated than you are about the Constitution and the framers’ intent. Your attempt to cite the supremacy clause in support of a bloated central government demonstrates this very well.

  21. There is so much wrong with this nonsense you must have went to glenn beck high. Nothing you have said is true and you should read the Supreme Court interpretations of the clause. In each one it struck down your so called states rights argument that states gives power to the Federal Government.

    No the Constitution is not an impediment to what you call a liberal agenda whatever that means, the problem is you Reich wingers changing the meaning to suit you racist, sexist views to maintain your white privilege

  22. quite frankly the tea baggers are not educated on the Constitution. Most of the framers of the Constitution were in support of a strong central government. The big issue with states rights, was the right of each state to have the same representation.. A large state could not have more representation than a small state. The framers of the Constitution never meant for each state to be its own country.
    You might want to take a look at what your teabag leaders are pushing. It’s called religion and it has nothing to do with states rights. Under your trainer thinking each state would end up just like Kansas.. A state is vastly easier to corrupt than a strong central government. But then again you are the person who would like a very small government that is easily taken over and pushed around by the 1%. And that is who you fight for today.. The 1%

    A liberal in this country is the only person who is interested in the Constitution. Let’s face it, the GOP has proven that it has no regard for the Constitution at all

  23. Here is one case that shoots down your nonsense

    In McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819), the Supreme Court reviewed a tax levied by Maryland on the federally incorporated Bank of the United States. The Court found that if a state had the power to tax a federally incorporated institution, then the state effectively had the power to destroy the federal institution, thereby thwarting the intent and purpose of Congress. This would make the states superior to the federal government. The Court found that this would be inconsistent with the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law superior to state law. The Court therefore held that Maryland’s tax on the bank was unconstitutional because it violated the Supremacy Clause.

    In Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982), the Supreme Court ruled: “A state statute is void to the extent that it actually conflicts with a valid Federal statute”. In effect, this means that a State law will be found to violate the Supremacy Clause when either of the following two conditions (or both) exist:[2]
    1.Compliance with both the Federal and State laws is impossible
    2.”State law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress”

  24. Your understanding of these issues is stunted. Neither case you cited refutes my proposition that the federal government as established by the Constitution is a limited government of specific enumerated powers.

    In fact, this proposition is so basic and fundamental to our Constitution that it’s not even really a “proposition” at all, but a truism.

    Don’t try citing case law to a federal government attorney who graduated with high honors from law school, who holds a bacheor’s degree in government, and who is a member of both the Order of the Coif and the National Political Science Honor Society.

    Rather than reject States’ rights, liberals should embrace the concept. Politically, this country has irreconcilable differences. A return to states’ rights will allow red states to be “racist” (or whatever spurious label you pick), but also allow blue states to pursue their dissolute liberal agendas. You get yours, we get ours, and we stop imposing our values on one another. …

  25. It’s 2L, not L2.

    And take me apart with respect to what?

    I have made a few universally understood statements regarding the framers’ intent. The Constitution created a central government of specific, limited, enumerated powers. This is basic stuff. If you don’t like it, too bad, that doesn’t change history.

    It is also uncontrovertible that the central government has grown significantly in size, scope and power.

    Accurate so far, right?

    So you must disagree with my opinion, not my facts. I am of the opinion that you cannot effectively centrally govern 320 million people, because a group that large will have irreconcilable goals and values. A government this large cannot be responsive to its constituents’ needs. So I have suggested a return to more state governance, because what’s right for Texans isn’t always what’s right for Californians, and vice versa.

    Why oppose this?

    I think I know the answer…I bet it has something to do with imposing liberal ideo…

  26. and at the same time, states governments have grown.. They now take over cities and giveaway public property to private corporations.

    The federal government performs its duties, and the states perform their duties. this country is no longer living in 1776. This country has taken on a tremendous amount of stuff that did not exist in 1776.. Many things that the Constitution quite simply never covered. You simply have to deal with it. While you think you’re spouting facts, you are really not. You are leaving out reality..

  27. First all they tried that limited government with the Articles of Confederation and then they saw it didn’t work so they wrote the Constitution for a strong federal government.
    The friends of our country have long seen and desired, that the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and judicial authorities should be fully and effectually vested in the general government of the Union . . .

    It is obviously impractical in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. . .

    In all our deliberation on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union . . .These statement are from a letter signed by George Washington after being unanimously endorsed by the Constitutional Convention. Nowhere does it say: “our goal was to make the federal government as small as possible.”
    http://legal-planet.org/2012/07/04/did-the-founding-fathers-believe-in-a-strong-national-government-you-betcha/

    BTW where did you get your law degree from? Oral Roberts because you sound like another person who got their degree from that “ahem” University

  28. Are you the eminent jurist you are citing? Congratulations on your grandiosity!

    It is an L2. You are talking like somebody who has been LSAT on.

  29. Try reading what you’re cutting and pasting.

    Your Geo. Washington quote states as follows: “…the power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money and regulating commerce…” [resides in the federal government].

    Yes, these are proper functions of the central government.

    Note that he does NOT state it is the role of the central government to: define marriage, establish rules governing abortion, prescribe capitol punishment and its methods, regulate health care, subsidize the lazy/stupid, impose onerous regulations on small businesses, and meddle in the daily lives of ordinary Americans. It was through the 14th Amendment and commerce clause, as implemented by activist liberal judges, that progressives have worked to impose a uniform laws on local issues across all 50 states, under the guise of Constitutionalism.

    Tell me, what is the point of having States if we’re simply going to allow the federal government to regulate all aspects of our lives?

  30. So lets bring back slavery, take away civil rights of certain groups of people you don’t like because you do know marriage is a civil not religious institution, let people poison your food air and water just to make a dollar, take away women’s right to her own body, and the ACA does not regulate healthcare.

    Just come right out and say it. If you are not a white fake ass Christian male then you don’t deserve any freedoms other than what I will let you have. White power. And yes you are a racist.

    BTW I see you left out the whole quote. Why do you knuckleheads always do that?
    It is obviously impractical in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. . .

    In all our deliberation on this subject we kept steadily in our view, that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of our Union
    .

  31. I have been saying this for well over a year. We know that the administration has weaponized the IRS so why wouldn’t they do the same with the NSA. When you have almost $4 TRILLION dollar annual budgets to spend, people get pushy etc. You know they have records of his porn habits and probably pictures of him passed out drunk with planted (or not “tutes”. He has also passed Nancy Pelosi in adding to the National Debt. He has borrowed $3.8 TRILLION to her $3.6 Trillion. He is a traitor. he should resign and start going to AA meetings.

  32. A little history lesson for those who in their delusion talk about states rights over the Federal Government

    Shays Rebellion
    In 1786, just three years after the United States won its independence from Britain, an armed rebellion broke out in the state of Massachusetts. The Shays Rebellion shook the new nation, and nudged it towards rewriting its entire system of government–producing the Constitution that we have today.
    Read More
    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/12/16/1329485/-Shays-Rebellion

  33. Hey Vernon, ask Kansas how tax cutting worked for them, it didnt to the tune of 1 Billion. This is no longer 1800. Policy has to adapt to the times you live in. We learned that in 9th grade. Nobody even listens to tbags spewing Constitution this, Constitution that. We all know you dont have a firm understanding of it in regards to the real world, not your self-interpretation of the document. Fool.

  34. Speaking of Brownback I don’t know how he could pull this off but this is one sociopathic A-hole
    ACA plays a role in Brownback budget fix

    $55 million from KDHE drug rebates affected by Obamacare
    When Gov. Sam Brownback announced this week a list of stopgap measures to close a $280 million budget hole, one of the biggest chunks was $55 million from a “Kansas Department of Health and Environment Fee Fund Sweep” made possible in part by a federal law the governor has strenuously opposed and criticized.
    The $55 million comes from a Medicaid drug rebate program that was expanded as part of the federal Affordable Care Act.
    http://www.khi.org/news/2014/dec/11/aca-plays-role-brownback-budget-fix/

  35. I read the article and all comments. Thank you for sharing your knowledge of the Constitution and the blog sites you have posted. It is rare when an opportunity arises to increase one’s understanding of our country’s beginnings. Thank you for the chance to better understand why my/our forefathers suffered so much for our country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.