Boehner, with Laserlike Focus on Job Creation, Will Fight the Gays

Probably, at least.

Because somethings are apparently more important than the economy.



  1. Also, government (state and federal) spending does more than just raise the debt/deficit – it pays for jobs, whether directly – government, public, or contract jobs – or indirectly through demand for goods and services! Sure, there may be waste and inefficiencies (most notably where the GOP refuses to cut: defense contracts), but that’s an entirely different discussion from whether or not we should be spending the money at all.

    But I guess cutting jobs doesn’t count as negative job creation the same way lowering tax revenue doesn’t count as increased debt.

  2. How does defending the law affect job creation?

    1. But that doesn’t address the specific point of how defending DOMA prevents job creation.

    2. oneiroi · ·

      I wasn’t trying to answer that question for you…

      1. Well then your point really has nothing to do with the conversation.

      2. oneiroi · ·

        Which is why I didn’t reply to your comment.

        I’m allowed to comment whatever I want on a post.

        Thanks for being moderator though. I appreciate it.

        1. Well then please allow me to respond on behalf of all the liberal commenters:

          “Yeah man, those Republicans don’t really care about job creation. Right on…”

        2. oneiroi · ·

          Oneiroi, unprompted, respectfully withdraws this comment, and expresses his love for all :). -Ed.

  3. Mike, it’s a disingenuous hit & that’s the point. Boehner accused Obama of getting distracted from jobs with petty things like healthcare reform; same argument, but flip it.

    And haha, yeah, Goldman being particularly biased to Democrats :)

    1. You’ve already noted that the Speaker and other members of Congress wouldn’t actually be the ones doing the defense. You can’t backtrack now.

    2. Nor is Obama creating jobs himself. It’s to demonstrate that Boehner’s equivalent point is nonsense.

      1. In the case of HCR both the President and the Democratic members of Congress were actively engaged in the effort. With a defense of DOMA they punt to lawyer proxies.

        Not even a little bit similar.

      2. Isn’t it still an expenditure of resources and a distraction of focus? You’re really splitting hairs with this one :)

        1. I don’t think there would be a lot of esources involved. “I’d expect them to retain either private counsel, paid or pro bono, or coordinate with issue advocacy groups. The Thomas More Law Center (ick) regularly takes cases like this for clients like this. And, major law firms will file or assist with amicus briefs on both sides… “

  4. And do you think the President personally directs all legislative efforts?

    1. No – but he was very involved with HCR (which is the specific analogy liberals are trying to make). By your own legal explanation the GOP will be significantly less involved with a DOMA fight so it’s significantly less of a distraction.

      I would also like to mention how completely transparent this all is. A week ago I specifically raised the point that it was unfair to force Congress to defend DOMA because the DOJ had more resources. You dismissed my concerns with the statement above about the Thomas More law Center and pro bono private counsel. Now a week later you are saying that a defense of DOMA is a distraction from job creation and the GOP is irresponsible to do it.

      You can’t have it both ways Ames.

  5. Haha, I think you’re misunderstanding this post. It’s intended to be tongue in cheek, because it’s a stupid attack, but the kind Republicans use. See?

    1. In order for it to be humorous, doesn’t the anlogy still have to be correct? As I pointed out, it isn’t. HCR was a great big undertaking that left the President ignoring job creation for the first two years of his administration (which he paid for last November). Using private council to defend DOMA isn’t even in the same ballpark.

  6. This is long past silly. Is your assertion that Obama did nothing for two years other than healthcare reform, and that his personal agenda, NOT HIS MESSAGING OPERATION, remained focused on healthcare exclusively for the same time?

    I’m going to jump ahead to answering your next reply. I’ve worked in political offices. The staff does the work with minimal direction from the elected.

    1. Ames – you made the analogy – not me. So it’s YOUR responsibility to explain how the situations are similar. You’ve already explained how the DOMA defense isn’t a time drain. Now (if I understand you correctly) you are saying that HCR really required no significant involvement by the President. I’ll accept that so it’s comforting to know that we won’t see a series of posts from you in 2012 claiming that HCR was a significant accomplishment of the administration in their first term.

  7. Those are obviously different questions. Accomplishments are accomplishments of the administration. Arguments about what time Obama personally has miss the point.

    1. So you think he should claim credit for something he spent little time on when re-aplying for his job in 2012?

  8. We’re approaching the dadaist level of absurdity.

    1. It’s a fair question Ames and if you would quit talking in circles you’d have a resolution. I’m just asking of it’s fair for him to claim credit for HCR when it was apparently all accomplished by staffers? I mean, I guess in the root-cause sense he did do the hiring, but even the hiring is probably delegated to his chief of staff. So does he get credit for hiring the hirers who hired the people who put HCR together?

  9. The answer is yes, obviously. Staffers serve their employer’s agenda. For politicians I’ve worked for, in many cases, the substantive work has been more mine than his, but I expected that (and was proud when) he took credit for it. Similarly, juniors will write motions and briefs to have them ultimately signed by partners, only. That’s the way it goes.

  10. The point is, in these cases, strategic direction and agenda-setting is done by the big guys, who receive credit on that basis, while the lower-levels do the nuts & bolts, day to day work.

    1. So then we’re going with the theory that lawmakers and the President can handle as many issues as necessary to meet the needs of the nation… agreed? I’m willing to accept that if we can use that as a rule going forward for all similar discussions.

%d bloggers like this: