Skip to content

Congressman responds to fan letter applying government shutdown logic to the Braves-Dodgers game

Oct 9, 2013, 4:00 PM EDT

Jack Kingston

Yesterday we ran the letter Paul Kaplan wrote to his congressman, Jack Kingston, in which he satirically suggested that the same logic behind the government shutdown be applied to the Braves-Dodgers game.  The letter has gone viral, as the kids say, and it has now inspired a response from Congressman Kingston.

It’s over at Fox Sports.com by Sam Gardner. It reads:

Dear Mr. Kaplan,

Thank you very much for your letter regarding the potential demise of baseball. Some have suggested it was a rhetorical squeeze play or a hit and run since the letter was posted online before it was actually mailed to me. Of course, it could be languishing in the post office. Sometimes, it’s hard to know when the mail service is open or closed.

I agree with you that Republicans and the Braves have much in common. You could say that the Republicans “Bravely” take on tough issues such as defunding Obamacare and trying to curtail runaway spending. And we don’t mind clearing the dugout for a good brawl. We also agree that Dodgers is a fitting name for the Democrats as they often “Dodge” serious issues such as balancing the budget or cutting spending.

Where we disagree is the game itself. If Uribe had decent bunting skills, he would have simply tied the score. Thus, the game would have continued. In such a situation, neither the Dodgers nor the Braves would have walked off the field crying “I will not ‘negotiate’ or, in this case, bat.” No, they would have stayed engaged and slugged it out. But, alas, Uribe can’t bunt — so game over.

On the bright side, winning the pennant doesn’t guarantee world peace. In fact, there are other glimmers of hope in the universe. Did you see the UGA-Tennessee game? Obviously, there is a God in Heaven. Or as we say in Athens: How ‘bout them Dawgs?

Sincerely,

Jack Kingston
Member of Congress

So, as far as I can tell, the Republican Kingston is suggesting that the opposition — be it the Dodgers or Democrats — execute a bunt. A play which makes no tactical sense, would be self-defeating and would serve no one’s interests other than the Braves/Republicans.

Man, this analogy approximates reality even better than we first thought.

111 Comments (Feed for Comments)
  1. chill1184 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:07 PM

    Its always cute when conservatives like Kingston think they’re actually different from the liberals they oppose. Always discover their “liberty” roots when kicked out of power from their blue statist brethren

  2. manute - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:09 PM

    It’s just like the other guy’s letter!

    Minus the originality, charm, humor and logic.

    I mean, it was bad from the start, but he totally lost me at Uribe.

    • cohnjusack - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:54 PM

      Oh, well…you see, A bunt is like the Democrats who homered when Republicans Obamacared. Wait…that doesn’t sound right. The Republicans dodged bunting Democrats Obamahomers and cared in the winning run.

      The important thing is that ” winning the pennant doesn’t guarantee world peace”…I guess.

      In summary, what the fuck is he talking about?

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:58 PM

        He french fried when he shoulda pizzaed.

  3. tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:11 PM

    1) He sounds like a huge douche

    2) I don’t think he watched baseball

    I wish I could move to his district just to vote for his opponent.

    But I’d rather not live in Georgia just to make a point.

    • jkcalhoun - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:54 PM

      If enough opposing voters move into his district, won’t they just move his district out of the way of the opposition?

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:00 PM

        Nooo…..that’s what DEMOCRATS do.

    • jkcalhoun - Oct 9, 2013 at 7:29 PM

      If that’s your belief, then please avoid reading this.

      • jkcalhoun - Oct 9, 2013 at 7:30 PM

        Oops, that was supposed to be a reply to the partisan comment immediately above.

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 9:55 PM

        I think you have to actually read my post like it sounds in my head to understand it.

        That’s probably not the best method to use when deciding on phrasing for something but….it’s the one I went with.

  4. sandrafluke2012 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:13 PM

    We should default. Need to liquidate

    • cohnjusack - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:55 PM

      Yes, because a government working just like a business.

      Speaking of which, who ever suggested that businesses should just default on their debts?

    • kevinbnyc - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:32 PM

      The hell with defaulting. Take the government public! Think of the capital an IPO could raise!

  5. chip56 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:13 PM

    I really want nothing to do with talking about politics in this setting, however I will say that the argument that Democrats and Liberals use about how Republicans should move on about the Affordable Health Care Act because it’s law is a bunch of hogwash. There have been plenty of bad laws that were subsequently overturned throughout our nation’s history including (but not limited to) Prohibition and DOMA. In fact, currently there are a lot of people trying to get the current laws on immigration overturned. I don’t hear any Democrats or liberal pundits saying that those people should stop arguing for change just because something is already a standing law.

    • Craig Calcaterra - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:17 PM

      Except that the Republicans have tried to change the law 40 times. But they can’t because they cannot win control of the Senate or the presidency (or to convince those who do to change their position). Which are usually the sorts of things that give you a popular mandate to change laws.

      So, with the usual means of changing laws unavailable to them, they have chosen to shutter government in an effort to get their demands met. Perhaps you believe that, because this is a tool at their disposal, it is a fine and noble means of doing so. I think most people think differently.

      Want to change the laws? Win some elections. Want to win elections? Don’t be hateful douches who are unable to explain why their policies are superior.

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:24 PM

        Not to mention, at no point has any Democrat suggested the ACA is flawless, or that it is an “as-is” piece of legislation with absolutely no room for improvement or negotiation (although I can understand why the Republicans don’t understand that concept).

        So maybe, aside from trying to circumvent the legislative process, they could actually try and IMPROVE the law instead of saying….wait for it…..”This law has to go entirely and there is absolutely no room for negotiation.”

      • rathipon - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:55 PM

        Voters decided upon split government. A stalemate is the logical outcome. Ultimately the major issues such as health care will, of course, be decided through the political process. That process is exactly what is playing out right now. I fail to see how either side is really doing anything wrong. They are doing exactly what they were asked to do by the people who elected them.

      • chip56 - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:02 PM

        Slow down there Craig – I never once said that shuttering the government was the right thing to do, nor did I say I agreed with the stance the Republican party has taken.

        What I said was that the Democratic logic that the Affordable Health Care Act is law and therefore shouldn’t be challenged is hogwash.

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:07 PM

        chip, as Craig pointed out….they HAVE challenged the law, 40+ times, in the proper channels. And FAILED 40+ times through those channels.

        This is an assault on a standing and constitutional law. It’s not a challenge. It’s an assault on the system.

      • mornelithe - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:19 PM

        Not necessarily change, they’ve tried to repeal/defund it 40+ times, but that’s a far cry from change. Honestly, the law that got passed is so far from what Obama originally wanted, I’d imagine if the GoP offered some intelligent, logical fixes the Senate Dems and White House would be interested in talking.

        The problem is the GoP is attempting to defund or terminate certain parts of the bill, which could easily make it unravel/make it hugely expensive. For example, they wanted to terminate the DME (Durable Medical Equipment) tax (on the manufacturer/importer), which is a tax that helps the bill pay for itself (it’s self-contained, which is why the shutdown does nothing to it). But, getting rid of the DME tax, offsets the structure of the bill to start it costing obscene amounts and thus would end up getting shelved.

      • 18thstreet - Oct 9, 2013 at 6:27 PM

        Just need to respond to the person who said the voters decided on divided government. Collectively, that’s true. But it doesn’t reflect reality.

        Most people vote for one party or the other. I know I do, with some exceptions. Most people would prefer one side’s preferred outcomes. And that’s what happened in the last election. Obama won about 5 million more votes than did Romney. House Democrats won about 2 million more votes than House Republicans (masked by the distribution of those votes, the Republicans won more seats, not more votes). The math is complex in the Senate, since only one-third of the seats are up each time, but the Democrats gained 2 seats aggregate.

        At the most extreme end of this, take a look at what happened in Pennsylvania. Obama won 52-47. Senator Casey (a Democrat) was reelected 54-45. A pretty similar split happened when you add up all the votes that the House candidates got. But the Democrats won 5 seats and the Republicans won 13. (The reasons are complex and beside the point.) It’s safe to say that a clear (but not overwhelming) majority of voters in Pennsylvania would have preferred Democrats controlled the House of Representatives, and thus all three branches.

        So while we wound up with a divided government, it’s safe to say that a slim majority of voters — say, 52 percent? — preferred having the Democrats in charge.

      • nothanksimdriving123 - Oct 9, 2013 at 6:41 PM

        To Rath: You said “the voters decided upon split government” but that is only true depending on your definitions. I doubt many voters actually voted for a GOP House member and a Dem. Senator and for President Obama. A majority obviously voted to re-elect our President. Under a different electoral system, such as one that is proportional, that would also produce a Congress of his party. Our system allows for majorities of relatively small numbers of voters in Congressional districts (which are shaped by the dominant party in each state) to produce the results we have now, with a minority party controlling the House. And it is a party which has stated its intent to oppose almost anything the President proposes and then demand he “compromise” by supporting what they want. Actual compromise involves both sides letting go somewhat.

      • rightwngextremist - Oct 9, 2013 at 6:53 PM

        Thank you 18street for detailing the ’12 election results. Please provide the same analysis for the ’10 election. You know, the election that took place a few months after Obamacare was signed into law. Thank you in advance.

      • asimonetti88 - Oct 9, 2013 at 9:20 PM

        I’m not saying anything either way, but Craig, your reasoning is the same reasoning that allowed things like women’s suffrage to flounder. Simply saying it’s the law is not sufficient. You need more reasoning than that. Again, I’m absolutely not arguing for or against ACA here, but your reasoning is not sound.

      • zohvahk - Oct 11, 2013 at 10:50 AM

        id like to refer all democrats to an article by a man much more articulate than I, and anyone else too if they feel their beliefs wavering

      • evanfreeward - Oct 11, 2013 at 4:58 PM

        The following by zohvahk a little further down in the comments is not hateful and I think you should give it some consideration.

        (Also, please stop referring to yourself as a Braves fan. Some on this board have believed you and are mindlessly regurgitating this false claim as an actual fact.)

        “id like to refer all democrats to an article by a man much more articulate than I, and anyone else too if they feel their beliefs wavering”

    • El Bravo - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:26 PM

      If it is bad or even partially bad, you argue that in the appropriate venue. This isn’t it. The point that you and the folks of the same mind somehow always fail to miss is that this is about the budget and the debt ceiling and NOTHING else. Those should not be hamstrung by political agendas to get one party’s way on something. Imagine the precedent this sets. Let the AFA and its components be argued outside of the budget and debt ceiling negotiations like they should be. If the AFA is mended, repealed, fixed, whatever, it will not be done by using the budget and debt ceiling as a hostage. It is really so obvious about who is right and wrong on this I can’t even fathom how anyone can say they are a Republican with a straight face. When it comes to the budget and the debt ceiling, it doesn’t matter what you think about health care. Read that last sentence 200 times so you finally can get it.

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:29 PM

        “Ok, ok, fine, we will remove the Obamacare provision from the negotiations….but in return for passing the budget, you have to agree to outlaw abortion and mandate that being gay is wrong.”

      • chip56 - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:04 PM

        Again to clarify – I am not arguing about the stance of the GOP. I am saying that the notion that just because something is law means it shouldn’t be challenged is false and that Democrats themselves have, numerous times, changed laws that they didn’t agree with.

      • rightwngextremist - Oct 9, 2013 at 7:25 PM

        El Bravo – man that Kool-Aid must taste great. So I went ahead and read your last sentence 200 times, as suggested, and I am now dumber for having read it. The extremely partisan, er non-partisan CBO recently increased the projected net cost of the ACA to $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. Please explain where the money is coming from if it’s not in the budget. As well, I’d like to know how something with a NET COST of $1.7 TRILLION is not going to impact our national debt. I won’t hold my breathe for the answer…

      • yahmule - Oct 10, 2013 at 2:41 PM

        That’s not why you’re dumber. Try changing your radio station.

      • zohvahk - Oct 11, 2013 at 10:13 AM

        ok… to el bravo and your 56 likes ppl, you’re all fools and its a damned shame. those 40+ attempts everyone keeps mentioning were not attempts to defund the ACA, but rather attempts to fund government excluding ACA, and the Senate throws it out. not even willing to speak on the matter. It is in fact the House of Representatives constitutional responsibility to decide on what they want to be funded, that is the entire purpose in having a 3 part government. checks and balances people… so you should probably direct your misguided disgust towards those who are actually responsible for the shutdown

        and just to put it out there, i am definitely not democrat OR republican, i have the luxury of seeing through the political party veil that many of you allow to blind you

    • stlouis1baseball - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:40 PM

      Great post Chip. On point and wonderfully articulated.

    • emdash01 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM

      If they were to overturn it with votes, that would be perfectly democratic and not something anyone could reasonably object to. But since they couldn’t do that, and they refuse to wait until they’ve built up a coalition or elected more representatives who agree with them, they’ve opted to hold the whole government hostage until they get what they want.

      Would you want a Democratic House to shut down the government indefinitely if a law passed they disagreed with while a Republican was in office? Because that’s the path that’s opening up here if this tactic succeeds.

    • historiophiliac - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:51 PM

      Remember that time we shut down the government to repeal DOMA? That was awesome. And that other time we furloughed government employees for MONTHS to get rid of immigration caps and NSA spying? I love democracy and paying my representatives to be protesters instead of law-makers. Anarchy!

  6. gerryb323 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:15 PM

    Republicans support bunting! Bunting is now officially evil!

  7. easywolf - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:16 PM

    Wow these moron cons are funny, wasn’t it them that ran up the deficit with their wars?

  8. El Bravo - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:20 PM

    You know what? Fuck this guy. The letter written to him was a satirical piece aimed at how dumb the republicans are being for making the government close down in order to defund something completely unrelated: the AFA. It was written to make fun of their negoiating tactics and it hit the nail on the head, in my opinion. So his response is to write a pseudo-metaphorical letter back in pure jest? How about negotiating with the rest of congress to unlock the deadlock? How about fixing the weaker parts of the AFA with two-party support instead of shutting the government down to get their way? No one said the law is perfect and no one said it can’t be negotiated and revised outside of holding the government hostage to do so. No, instead, this dickhead decides that wasting time responding to a joke letter is the better diea. Seriously, fuck this guy.

    • stlouis1baseball - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:42 PM

      Hard to negotiate when only one side seems willing to pull up a chair Bravo.

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:45 PM

        Guess you missed the interview Bonehead did with George Stephanopoulos where he admitted he and Harry Reid had a clean budget in place in July, and then the Republicans decided to pull this shit instead.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:52 PM

        Nope. I saw it. Thing is…I am not a person who disagrees with someone (who thinks differently than me)…based solely on them thinking differently. Specifically, I don’t disagree for the sake of disagreeing. There are lots of left leaning ideas I dig. I mean really dig. Whereas…I would guess most left leaning folks disagree with Mr. Kingston based solely on the fact that he is a right leaning middle aged white dude. Anywho…please advise as to how your post pertains specifically to my point about one side of the table being empty. You wanna’ talk “my way or the highway” when (rather ironically) that is precisely what one particular side is currently doing. “I am not negotiating until and unless the ACA is accepted as is.”

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:55 PM

        I missed gerryb323’s post.
        Wow. It is exactly what I was referring to with regards to disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. Sure…his post might be tongue-in-cheek. Perhaps not. Either way…it speaks to EXACTLY what I was referring to.

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:47 PM

        Although I do love the notion that something that isn’t even tied to the budget should be a point of negotiation.

        “Ok, I’ll pay you the money I owe you but only if I get to fuck your wife.”

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:54 PM

        So you are essentially saying the “Affordable” Care Act has no budgetary implications? Seriously? Come on Man. You aren’t saying that are you?

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:56 PM

        Again….IT’S NOT A POINT OF NEGOTIATION. It’s a LAW and it’s ALSO funded outside of the budget. It is a completely separate issue and is like saying “We aren’t passing a budget until you ban abortion.” That’s not a negotiation.

        And you also ignore the fact that the side you are defending in this issue has refused to negotiate since JULY….when they HAD a negotiated agreement in place.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:57 PM

        I refer you to Chip’s post. I am gone for now. Gotta’ game to prepare for. Have good evening Buckfutter. Lol! Dude…love your name. Makes me laugh like a middle schooler every time I type it.

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:05 PM

        And I refer you to my addendum to Craig’s response to chip.

        Enjoy the game. Glad one of us ended this soon before it turned into a muddled back and forth.

      • clemente2 - Oct 9, 2013 at 6:44 PM

        What? StLouis, c’mon! It is absolute crap to use the budget ratification and the debt ceiling to force a negotiation on an existing law. They hold the economy hostage, they leave people unpaid—it is not a negotiation, it is a tantrum.

        And you are mis-reading Chip. He is right that any Democrat who says ‘we will not negotiate’ is being silly. But few if any are—they are only saying we are not negotiating by tying AFA to the budget and debt ceiling votes.

        I agree with you it is a political tool held by the Republicans–most people think hostaging the economy and leaving millions unpaid is irresponsible and dishonorable. When and if in the future the Democrats do this (I hope they do not), please do not complain

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 10, 2013 at 11:24 AM

        I am not misreading Chip. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Please know I won’t complain a bit Roberto. The Dem’s in my state as well as Wisconsin did you one better. They actually fled the state. Went to Illinois no less!

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 10, 2013 at 11:27 AM

        Separately: I thank you (and I mean that sincerely) for actually having an adult conversation without resorting to juvenile name calling, aimless innuendos, slander, etc… I didn’t think you were capable. I really do appreciate it Roberto. I may have to remove you from the list. Lol!

  9. tbird05 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:23 PM

    Craig,

    I enjoy reading your analysis of baseball, and I further appreciate your honesty when writing about the Braves – regardless of how it makes them look. As a fellow Braves fan, and baseball fan, I can appreciate many of the arguments you make.

    However, I have one simple request: Please leave anything related to politics as far away from baseball as possible.

    One of the greatest things about baseball is the unity it creates. I’m sure you have noticed, but politics rarely promotes unity and, quiet frankly, isolates a reader base that otherwise enjoys following you. I do not care whether you are liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. For the most part, your articles do not imply such political leanings. However, occasionally you will write an article (like the one above) that unnecessarily pollutes the purity of the game we all love.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:26 PM

      If you don’t like the political posts, don’t read them.

      Complaining about post topics on a blog is like going to Wal-Mart and bitching at their customer service because they carry both black and white socks, but you only like white socks so they should stop carrying the black socks.

      • tbird05 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:34 PM

        Following that analogy, it would be more about their unnecessary promotion of why the black socks are better than the white ones.

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:37 PM

        Unnecessary to YOU because YOU don’t like black socks.

        But the owner of Wal-Mart prefers black socks. And most of the customers of that particular Wal-Mart do too.

        And since you don’t own that Wal-Mart, your request that they eliminate the black socks to suit your wishes is kind of silly.

      • historiophiliac - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:40 PM

        I didn’t get the satire in his letter to Craig. Did you?

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:43 PM

        It must be too subtle for me.

      • tbird05 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:51 PM

        Alright, lets look at it this way: Craig has political opinions regarding both republicans and democrats (which could be displayed in walmart as having both white and black socks). That is fine, no problem there. However, at least in this setting, it is my opinion that arguing for one side or the other is unnecessary. Baseball doesn’t see red or blue, right or left. It just sees people that are passionate about the game they love. I am not telling Craig to discard opinions that he has (which could be construed as getting rid of black socks). I am just asking that he not let that seep into the baseball world. Also, it is just a request, not a demand. Perhaps he will enjoy reading an alternate perspective to how his writings can be interpreted, and perhaps he could care less.

    • El Bravo - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:32 PM

      You do realize this is all related to baseball right? Stop reading shit you don’t want to read. It’s like touching the stove and burning yourself when you already knew the stove was hot.

    • thomas655 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:33 PM

      AMEN

      • thomas655 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:35 PM

        AMEN to tbird05

  10. elmo - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:24 PM

    Obviously neither the congressman nor his proofreaders noticed that if Uribe had successfully got the sac bunt down, that would have moved the runner to third, which would not have tied the score. Pinning your strained analogy on a misconception, priceless.

  11. emdash01 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:34 PM

    The conflation of Braves/Republicans and Dodgers/Democrats makes me pine for the ultimate troll piece about the Braves as the new guardians of conservative American values, with Brian McCann standing athwart baseball history yelling “stop!,” and the Braves’ sensitivity to being shown up being perfectly representative of the southern antebellum “honor” culture.

    It would be mostly nonsense, of course, but the comments would be *amazing.* I’m frankly disappointed that I had to be the one to think of this.

    • historiophiliac - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:41 PM

      Also, Braves/Repubs do the tomahawk chop. Urp.

      • proudlycanadian - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:08 PM

        Where do they stand on the hot topic of cake or pie?

      • historiophiliac - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:10 PM

        Pretty sure they are anti-Twinkie!

      • proudlycanadian - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:17 PM

        Probably drools over cheesecake photographs, but claims to prefer apple pie.

  12. barkleyblows - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:47 PM

    Typical liberal comments on this site. Blame blame blame. Never be held accountable. You get what you vote for.

    • mybrunoblog - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM

      Many folks who post here have strong left wing opinions. Sometimes I think they spend lots of time on internet blogs because they lack employment or any type if social life. They mock conservatives but we have the last laugh. We have the good jobs, money and of course all the firearms.

      • historiophiliac - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:53 PM

        It’s hilarious that you think I have firearm envy.

      • Kevin S. - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:55 PM

        The vast majority of the highest states in median household income are blue. Try again.

      • emdash01 - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:56 PM

        Says the guy posting on this blog…

    • clemente2 - Oct 9, 2013 at 6:51 PM

      barkley–this ‘no accountability’ ‘meme’ is even weaker than the PC one thrown around hereabouts. It has no basis in fact, and says nothing to the people of whom you are critical.

      • stlouis1baseball - Oct 10, 2013 at 12:43 PM

        Just because you say something doesn’t have basis in fact doesn’t make it true. You do this frequently and it holds no weight.

        The “Affordable” Care Act is a perfect example. As someone else posted…

        “The extremely partisan, er non-partisan CBO recently increased the projected net cost of the ACA to $1.7 trillion over the next 10 years. Please explain where the money is coming from if it’s not in the budget. As well, I’d like to know how something with a NET COST of $1.7 TRILLION is not going to impact our national debt.”

        To me…this screams “no and/or lack of accountability.” Not passing a budget (in how long?) screams “no and/or lack of accountability.” Continually raising the debt ceiling screams “no and/or lack of accountability.”

        I have to assume (and I know what they say about assumptions Roberto)…based upon your take/opinion(s) you live off Credit Cards. No? Because that is precisely what we are doing right now. That is precisely what we have been doing. And that is precisely what helped put us in the position we are in right now. I look forward to your reply.

      • Kevin S. - Oct 10, 2013 at 1:13 PM

        The PPACA also contains measures funding it. When Boehner asked the CBO to perform analysis on repealing the PPACA, the CBO concluded that repeal would actually raise the deficit by $109 billion over ten years. http://cbo.gov/publication/43471

  13. xdj511 - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:47 PM

    Wow, imagine you’re one of congressman Kingston’s staffers, and he comes over and plunks this letter down on your desk. “Here,” he says, “Write a response to this.” You think about it for a while, and come back with a thoughtful and witty reply. You take it back to your boss for approval, and he rips it up. “No, no, no!” He shouts, “We need more baseball analogies, just like the first letter. Forget it, I’ll do it myself,” and even though you’re a conservative idealist, you just know his response is going to suck.

    • crackersnap - Oct 9, 2013 at 6:03 PM

      I’m actually thinking that this IS the one written by one of his staffers. Somebody who maybe had a boyfriend in high school who played baseball.

      And when Congressman Marmalard proofread it he (being fairly ignorant of the actual contest in reference) went into that reading with his campaign smile already affixed to his best visage of earnestness and importance. And he completely missed out on realizing that it was illogical, incorrect, witless and over-reaching.

  14. cohnjusack - Oct 9, 2013 at 4:51 PM

    I think both sides of the aisle can come to together and agree on one thing. And that is that this man should stop attempting to make pun-filled baseball analogies. He’s really bad at it.

    • koufaxmitzvah - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:07 PM

      You and I would think so, but the good folks at Twitchy don’t. And do you know how many people like Twitchy?

      We live in some seriously stupid times, and to some, that’s reason to celebrate.

  15. koufaxmitzvah - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:05 PM

    Ah, the bold unoriginality of today’s GOP. I knew I was in for a treat the moment he blamed the post office.

  16. chill1184 - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:06 PM

    If for a second conservatives are all of a sudden for an actual free market solution to Obamacare, please think again.

    http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/09/gop-wants-to-replace-obamacare-with.html

    Or call me a communist, whatever makes you happy

    • cohnjusack - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:27 PM

      tsk tsk tsk….so much fuss over what still amounts to the least socialized healthcare program in the industrialized world…by far!.

      My questions: Was Obamacare socialism in 1993 when Republicans put up a similar health-care plan in response to the Clinton health plan? Or did it only become socialism when a guy in the party you don’t like put it up as a bill?

      • cohnjusack - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM

        Source: http://wallstcheatsheet.com/stocks/the-irony-of-obamacare-republicans-thought-of-it-first.html/?a=viewall

      • chill1184 - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:32 PM

        LOL you mistake me for a conservative. I’m a libertarian I hate the conservative movement as much as I do the left. Conservatism is just a big joke who only cares about liberty when they dont control the thugs of the state.

        Obamacare is basically an offshoot of Romneycare in a bigger scale in which was also an offshoot of Hillarycare back in the 90s which even then was an offshoot of Dolecare. Conservatives were never interested in actual free market solution to health care.

      • cohnjusack - Oct 9, 2013 at 6:38 PM

        Despite the fact that I responded to your statement, it was not actually meant as a response to you (though I can now see how that’s confusing). Rather, a response to the conservatives who simply seem to hate it because Obama did it and would likely put forth something that would also require tons of government intervention, as per your link.

        Rejoice could sir! No such criticism was meant to be leveled at you!

        Except that part where you said “libertarian”…

  17. jnichols1210 - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:12 PM

    Lol, Fulton County (where Atlanta is located) 64% voted for Obummer.

    • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 5:29 PM

      Lol, in America (where America is located) only 3% of people think “Obummer” is clever.

      And interestingly, 100% of that 3% have had sex with their kinfolk and/or barnyard animals.

      • clemente2 - Oct 9, 2013 at 7:03 PM

        tfb, I previously insulted you. I had the wrong commentor, and apologize.

      • tfbuckfutter - Oct 9, 2013 at 8:09 PM

        You did?

        Was it on the hat story last night or whenever?

        I remember an insult that seemed pretty random, but I didn’t note the poster’s name.

        I appreciate your apology, but I don’t really get bothered too much by internet banter. I know a lot of posters don’t like me regardless of what I post, so I just chalked it up to that. Call me an idiot if you disagree with me about how Theo Epstein kind of sucks….and if you want to think I’m an idiot because of that on a topic we agree on, go ahead. I don’t do that though.

    • bravojawja - Oct 10, 2013 at 10:10 AM

      LOL! True story: Fulton County is split up among four congressional districts, and Kingston represents none of them!

      So despite Fulton’s 64% vote for Obama, two of Fulton’s Reps are Republicans!

  18. sumerduckman - Oct 9, 2013 at 6:40 PM

    This mofo is lame. Democrats don’t/can’t connect with blue collar, working folks. Republicans don’t/can’t connect with folks who think.

  19. Marty - Oct 9, 2013 at 7:26 PM

    The shutdown reminds me of a typical strike by union transit workers. Something Craig and his shiny liberal melon has certainly sided with in the past. I’m sure there’s differences and caveats, but hostage taking so to speak is nothing unique or inherently evil.

    Regardless, both the letter and retort were equally witty.

    • clemente2 - Oct 9, 2013 at 7:46 PM

      The reply was witless.

      • Marty - Oct 9, 2013 at 8:20 PM

        I think it was kind that you up voted yourself. Shows a great degree of wit.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Oct 9, 2013 at 8:54 PM

        I guess he has two HBT accounts just to shove it in your face.

        Let them eat cake, Marty.

    • kaywhyelly - Oct 9, 2013 at 7:49 PM

      “retort [was] equally witty.”

      The retort was so incredibly lame and unfunny it made my brain hurt to read it. Humor requires some degree of self-awareness, which the congressman obviously lacks.

      • Marty - Oct 9, 2013 at 8:18 PM

        Only an idiot would expect a congressman to have high talent in comic delivery.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Oct 9, 2013 at 8:56 PM

        I guess that’s how Al Franken became a Senator.

        Face it, Marty. Your kind of people are dull, wet crackers.

        And I actually meant like soaked soda crackers, but the literal interpretation is perfect for you.

      • Marty - Oct 9, 2013 at 11:26 PM

        I am floored by your singular example. Doesn’t every survey insinuate right wingers are jovial while left bags are chalked full of disparity and anger?

      • koufaxmitzvah - Oct 10, 2013 at 8:11 AM

        Got it, Marty. My example sucks because it’s only an example of one.

        Meanwhile, you just keep telling us how Smart and Funny you are. Because that’s totally convincing.

        BTW: Does Clemente now have 6 accounts? Come on, Big Thinker. Think for us.

      • koufaxmitzvah - Oct 10, 2013 at 8:16 AM

        Right wingers as jovial…. Hmmmm…. [thinking about it]

        NO SEX. That means, no abortion! And no gay sex! Because two men having sex is just like a man having sex with a donkey!!11 So sayeth GOP! (But, please, ask for gay sex in the men’s room at the airport.)

        NO DRUGS. That means, no pot. Because pot leads to heroin and cocaine and LSD and PCP. Kids will be so high in America that they’ll be jumping off of rooftops. But everyone must have a drink, or two, or three. And at ballgames, those drinks will cost $10 because it’s a party, baby. Whooo-hooo.

        NO ROCK ‘N ROLL. Unless you’re really into Rage Against the Machine but for the tune-age, bro, and not the words. Fuck words.

        Party on, Marty. USA!!11! USA!11!

      • Marty - Oct 10, 2013 at 4:59 PM

        Koufax, It appears you’re still working against a straw man imagined in your head. For further elaboration on my thoughts, read the last line of my reply to “redflex” below.

        Cheers, you jovial soul.

    • Reflex - Oct 9, 2013 at 9:22 PM

      Of course in a transit worker strike you are putting yourself out of work if you go on strike. In the Republican tantrum they are putting 800,000 other people out of work while keeping their own jobs and pay. So really not similar at all…

      • Marty - Oct 10, 2013 at 4:57 PM

        Never mind the 450,000 people who use the transit service to get to their jobs, as in BART.

        You’re not a very good thinker, are you Redflex? From the 6 up votes to your comment, it appears your stupidity is shared by the majority.

      • Reflex - Oct 10, 2013 at 5:01 PM

        So a commuter has no other options when a transit strike occurs? I mean, I can see a convenience issue here, and certainly increased traffic jams, less available taxis, more walking, etc, but I am fairy certain that all the businesses and employees do not stop because of a transit strike.

        Who are you calling stupid? Last time I was in a transit strike the roads got more packed and more people were late to work, but life continued as before.

      • Marty - Oct 10, 2013 at 6:57 PM

        My god. You are manufacturing relevancies now to support your stupidity.

        Most who rely on transit for their jobs rely on transit for their jobs. Case closed.

      • Reflex - Oct 10, 2013 at 10:00 PM

        Aaaaand have no legs? Have no ability to call a cab? Have no ability to carpool? Cannot find any alternative at all?

        Sorry man, but the manufacturing is pretty much yours. Congress actions put OTHER PEOPLE out of work but NOT THEMSELVES. The actions of a transit workers union put THEMSELVES out of work, and INCONVENIENCE others.

        Huge difference there.

  20. roanboon - Oct 10, 2013 at 1:01 AM

    Stuff like this generates more votes than effective and affordable policy. All he has to do now to lock up his next election is play the saxophone on SNL.

    • bravojawja - Oct 10, 2013 at 10:13 AM

      Except for the whole Twenty-second Amendment thing, you’re exactly right!

      It’s your Constitution: read (all of) it!

  21. production55 - Oct 10, 2013 at 9:52 AM

    They couldn’t get the votes in the house to defund Obamacare so they decided the only way to get some attention is to take the country down the path of suicide. We are the most powerful country in the world and we can’t get our act together. I have a number of republican friends that are pissed because they don’t view themselves as tea party members. The representatives from the tea party are mostly from states that have the most people without health insurance. It doesn’t seem like any of them really care a out the people they represent. Baseball however keeps us sane in times of insanity

  22. evanfreeward - Oct 11, 2013 at 4:49 PM

    Reading these comments has been so much fun! It’s just like I’m reading the New York Times, Huffington Post and the Daily Kos. I really wish the following post by zohvahk had gotten more attention, because some who posted very often and relatively articulately about their point of view made no attempt to respond. I wonder why. Overmatched, I presume.

    “id like to refer all democrats to an article by a man much more articulate than I, and anyone else too if they feel their beliefs wavering”

    • Kevin S. - Oct 13, 2013 at 3:36 PM

      I’m not a Democrat, but that Sowell article is a flaming pile of shit. Yes, it is true that spending bills originate in the House, and that the House has every right to pass a bill defunding the PPACA. What it does not imply is that the House has the sole authority to shape spending bills. That the Senate rejected the House provisions does not make the shutdown the Senate’s fault. In fact, his claim that the Senate chose not to vote to spend that money is factually inaccurate. The Senate has every right to amend the bill, which they did. There were not enough votes in the Senate to pass it as it came to them, so they amended it to something that would pass and sent it back to the House. House leadership has refused to allow a vote on the amended bill, despite the fact that every House Democrat and enough moderate Republicans have said they would vote for the Senate bill.

      Further, all context is ignored. Sowell claims we cannot read people’s minds. True, but we can listen to their statements and observe their actions. For months, Republicans have openly discussed shutting down the government. For months, Republicans have blocked Democratic attempts to go to conference to reconcile the House and Senate budgets. The Republicans have come to the table with a long list of demands in exchange for allowing the government to operate. The Democrats have not made a single demand. In fact, their position is funding the government at sequester levels, which is a win for Republicans. Funding the PPACA is not a demand, because it is actually already funded. The shutdown has not affected the rollout in any way.

      As for default, we cannot prioritize the payments, for both technical and legal reasons. Sowell’s claims on that count are laughable. Here’s a take on that talking point from a man who held senior policy roles in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations and served on the staffs of Representatives Jack Kemp and Ron Paul: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/08/when-the-treasury-runs-out-of-cash/?_r=0

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Can Nationals run the playoff table?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. D. Jeter (3385)
  2. C. Kershaw (2394)
  3. R. Martin (2197)
  4. A. Rodriguez (1899)
  5. J. Altuve (1874)
  1. M. Trout (1731)
  2. P. Hughes (1694)
  3. D. Ortiz (1683)
  4. J. Hamilton (1682)
  5. T. d'Arnaud (1655)