Jay Carney Tries to Use Justin Amash Quote to Slam GOP on Sequester, Amash Explains “Being President 101”

The sequester is all the buzz in Washington. The reductions in the growth of spending were passed by Congress and signed by the president even though the president’s supporters call it a horrible idea. Both Congress and the president are responsible for the sequester and for the general delinquency in managing the country’s finances. Republican Congressman Justin Amash noted it was disingenuous for Republicans to “pin” the sequester on Obama and because he’s the president’s top man for spin, Jay Carney used it on Twitter. What followed:

twitter the ultimate spin zone?Twitter

For those not in the know: Congress passes laws, the president signs them. He shouldn't sign bills he doesn't want to see made law.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    It not his fault: never is, never was.

  • gaijin||

    It not his fault: never is, never was.

    my 15 year old responds the same way when something happens that makes him look bad.

  • db||

    Tell him it makes him look worse to pass the buck.

  • gaijin||

    I usually tell him men take responsibility for their actions, so I understand why he would blame others. That seems to get his attention...once in a while.

  • geekster||

    That's sexist. Way should "men" have to take "responsibility" for their so called alleged "actions"?

  • gaijin||

    Because, dipshit, he's a boy who wants to be thought of as a man. If he were a she, I'd tell 'her' that 'women' take responsibility.

  • geekster||

    Apparently you won't be teaching him the meaning of "sarcasm" either.

  • gaijin||

    sorry about that. Sarcasm meter was turned off this morning.

  • Sudden||

    TANF, WIC, SNAP, EBT, subsidized birth control, preferential treatment in divorce and custody hearings even if they're the ones who committed fraud in the marriage via affair.

    Yeah, women don't exactly take responsibility for their actions.

    /broad generalization that does not capture every woman, but a significant enough percentage so as to constitute broad generalization.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "broad generalization"

    I see what you did there.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    "If you're not responsible enough to own up to your mistakes, you're not responsible enough to be using that iPad and computer or to manage your allowance."

    Two or three applications was all it took. They obviously still make mistakes, but much fewer related to blame-shifting and I get honest answers. And the honest answers shame them a little and help make my point.

  • gaijin||

    excellent approach!

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    The first time I knew it was working was when one of the kids didn't do part of her homework. When I asked her why, she hesitated for a second then said "I was being lazy" and started crying. I felt so bad and so proud at the same time. She hasn't missed a homework assignment since then.

  • geekster||

    I for one, fully endorse President Shaggy.

  • db||

    We have to experience the consequences of a law to see whether we want to pass it.

    Sometimes I get the impression these assholes think they're playing a big game of SimCity and just want to see what will happen. It's like calling in Godzilla because your harbor needs a little renovation.

  • $park¥||

    And the best part is, ain't nothin' can be done to stop 'em.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    The Press Secretary and a Congressman have correspondence using terms like "w/it" and "u know".

    Our journey into duckspeak has begun.

    So did the fact of having very few words to choose from. Relative to our own, the Newspeak vocabulary was tiny, and new ways of reducing it were constantly being devised. Newspeak, indeed, differed from most all other languages in that its vocabulary grew smaller instead of larger every year. Each reduction was a gain, since the smaller the area of choice, the smaller the temptation to take thought. Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak, meaning "to quack like a duck". Like various other words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.
  • $park¥||

    Meh, it's the curse of Twitter. When you're limited to the amount of characters per message it makes everyone look like a semi-literate moron. Especially the semi-literate morons.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    If a Congressman wants to school the Press Secretary for God and everybody to see and is limited to 140 characters to do so, abbreviations are fine with me.

  • RBS||

    It's terrible. I hate Twitter for making it acceptable for anyone to abbreviate every single word, whether it makes sense of not. The worst part is college students actually do when they write papers. I just finished helping a friend of mine with some of her students papers. "Rough" draft is putting it mildly.

  • ||

    Y u no lke twtr?

  • Randian||

    1984 references are beyond played-out.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    Perhaps.

    But too damn often the shoe fits.

  • ||

    To me, the worse part was that Carney had to use "Sir" to start his second post which kept him from being able to fully type out "you".

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    What's even worse is that Carney's "Brainy Smurf" act has actually made me nostalgic for the oily unctuousness of Robert Gibbs.

  • Whiterun Guard||

    Wow, I'm getting a semi for Amash.

    Is he doing his own tweets or has he hired FOE to his PR staff?

  • Auscifer||

    Amash does his own tweets and FB posts. If you didn't know already, Amash explains every single vote he makes. It's an excellent tool for evaluating your own Rep.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    We could do a helluva lot worse than 535 Amashes. And we are.

  • brlfq||

    He shouldn't sign bills he doesn't want to see made law.

    The president often has no choice. He doesn't have line-item veto power.
    That's Being President 201.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    He always has a choice.

  • robc||

    If you choose not to decide

    ...

    you are President Obama.

  • robc||

    Veto the whole bill then.

  • brlfq||

    Odious bits of legislation are often attached to larger, noncontroversial and necessary bills. As you know. No president will ever shut down the government by vetoing everything that comes his way. As you know. That's why they all beg for a line-item veto, and why Congress will never cede that power.

  • Night Elf Mohawk||

    Odious bits of legislation are often attached to larger, noncontroversial and necessary bills.

    If only there were some way to stop that practice.

  • brlfq||

    Line item veto is the only way, short of sending up thousands of separate bills. That'll never happen in the real world.

  • Jordan||

    OBAMA HAD TO SIGN IT! WAAAAAH!

  • Spartacus||

    Well, OK, I'll bite.

    What was the "larger, noncontroversial and necessary" part of the sequester bill that forced poor little Barack to unwillingly sign it?

  • ||

    No president will ever shut down the government by vetoing everything that comes his way.

    You could just as easily argue that no Congress will ever shut down the government by sending bills to the President that he's promised not to sign.

  • prolefeed||

    No president will ever shut down the government by vetoing everything that comes his way.

    If Congress can't muster 2/3 of the votes in both Chambers to override a veto, arguably that bill not passing isn't quite the disaster you would make it out to be.

  • Cavpitalist||

    You could just as easily argue that no Congress will ever shut down the government by sending bills to the President that he's promised not to sign.

    I guess you missed the last 4 years, in which belligerent Tea Partiers collapsed our system of government with their hateful refusal to even talk about the issues.

    The President can be trusted to act rationally, but not Tea Baggers. They don't even believe in a woman's right to choose which contraception you're buying for her.

  • Way Of The Crane||

    Odious bits of legislation are often attached to larger, noncontroversial and necessary bills.

    You're fucking kidding me right? raising the debt ceiling was noncontroversial?

    He signed the sequester into law in order to continue to rack up massive debt. For you to say that he had no choice in the matter presumes that raising the debt ceiling was a better choice for this country than cutting spending.

  • Rasilio||

    "Odious bits of legislation are often attached to larger, noncontroversial and necessary bills. As you know. No president will ever shut down the government by vetoing everything that comes his way.'

    Why the fuck not? Especially one as teflon as Obama with a nice compliant media to spin everything his way for him. He could very easily have shut down the government and had 100% of the blame fall on those evil obstructionists in the Congress.

    Of course we know the real reason why he didn't veto the bill, that would have taken 3 things Obama is completely devoid of: Courage, Vision, and Leadership

  • R C Dean||

    Ya know, the President could just say:

    "This bill has some really odious provisions tacked onto it, so I'm vetoing it. Send it back with this crap, and I'll sign it."

    Especially a President with nice solid approval ratings dealing with a Congress that everyone hates.

  • Boisfeuras||

    No president will ever shut down the government by vetoing everything that comes his way.

    Cleveland vetoed 584 bills in 8 years. And noted right-wing zealot FDR vetoed 635 bills in 12 years. "Unlike the other famous veto president, Grover Cleveland, who limited his disapproval primarily to pension legislation, Roosevelt expressed his will on a range of subjects from homing pigeons to credit for beer wholesalers."

    That's why they all beg for a line-item veto, and why Congress will never cede that power.

    Uh, no. Congress passed the Line Item Veto Act of 1996... which was struck down by the Supreme Court.

  • gaijin||

    The president often has no choice.

    there is always a choice. Some people just dont have the balls to make it. Principles...how do they work?

  • brlfq||

    You're either very naive or ignorant of how legislation is created and passed. Here's a handy reference.

    http://thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html

  • gaijin||

    So, wrt the sequestration bill that is the subject of this thread, what odious legislation was attached to the bill that prevented him from choosing not to sign it?

  • Ted S.||

    Here's a better reference.

  • Emmerson Biggins||

    you are either a moron or a troll

  • robc||

    I think its Mary.

  • ||

    So both?

  • Whiterun Guard||

    This is what some people actually believe.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    The president often has no choice.

    IOW it's not his fault.

  • Rights-Minimalist Autocrat||

    I can see the official talking points responses have been issued.

  • Randian||

    Yeppers. I am sure brlfq is furiously reading Kos's twitter to see what essential, noncontroversial spending was attached to the sequester.

    It's especially rich because President Obama is the one who proposed the sequester in the first place, and now his Press Secretary tells us that he passed the law he proposed to avoid it?

  • grylliade||

    Here's Being President 102: When you have to make hard choices, you don't blame others. You're the one who wanted to be president; now put on your big-boy pants* and be president. You get paid a great deal of money to make hard decisions, so make hard decisions.

    * Or mom jeans, if you're so inclined.

  • crashland||

    The buck stops here.
    Harry Truman

    What the fuck, get that buck away from me.
    King Barry I

  • Ken Shultz||

    Somebody should be making the point that Republicans shouldn't be pinning the blame for cutting spending projections on Obama--they should be claiming the credit.

    The Republicans have been beaten up so badly for so long in public perceptions, that they just automatically get all defensive, but the way to beat Obama on this is to let Obama blame them for the cuts--and take all the credit for themselves!

    If the Dems don't want to be associated with responsible governance, then by all means, let 'me have all the rope they want.

  • db||

    Are we responding to trolls on Troll Free Thursday, Commenters?
    Yes, Other Commenters, yes we are.

  • ||

    Who's "we"? What kind of libertarian are you, anyway?

  • Jordan||

    You know, the people who try to enforce an echo chamber are almost as annoying as the trolls.

  • db||

    I'm not trying to enforce an echo chamber. It's one thing to engage in argument witg someone who's willing to be convinced; quite another to waste one's effort on a mendacious shit that stirs up trouble and continually evades honest discussion.

    Look at all the disagreement between sloopy and tulpa and cytotoxic and john and p brooks etc on drones and law and order. Is that an "echo chamber?" No. But each of them have honest opinions and will address, honestly, valid points that their opponents make. Not so with some of these trolls who continually move goalposts and slink away when their bullshit is called out.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah, even MNG could sometimes be relatively honest.

  • Randian||

    Well, as one of the two or three commenters who had many, many page arguments with the man, I will say that is partially true. He was certainly more honest than Tony, who argues and argues and then, the next day, hits the reset button and learns *absolutely nothing* from the day before.

  • Virginian||

    Yeah but being relatively honest compared to Tony is like the Platonic ideal of damming with faint praise.

  • brlfq||

    People who spend all their time in an echo chamber hate it when you call their echo chamber an echo chamber. The ensuing insults are childish and tiresome but that's what happens in an echo chamber. See also "hive mentality."

  • ||

    How cute, you're trying to warn us about you. How self-destructive.

  • brlfq||

    "Us"? You mean the other members of the hive?
    Are you their spokesdrone?

  • Virginian||

    I'm sorry, are you addressing me? Because your authority is not recognized in Fort Kickass.

  • db||

    +1 possible genetic clone of Adolf Hitler

  • Randian||

    Because I grew up in Braz...istol...County...Rhode Island...Lot of Portuguese in Rhode Island.

  • Auric Demonocles||

    I think it's a bit early to call him a troll. He might just be dumb.

    (unless he's popped up in some other threads I'm not aware of)

  • Virginian||

    I think it might be Mary back again.

  • ||

    It's popped up in many threads this week, and has some earmarks of well-known trolls.

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Also seems to be aware of some of the interpersonal dynamics and history between people here. Either a lurker who suddenly decided to comment all the time or a sock.

  • ||

    You know, I keep hearing all these people shouting "The sequester was never meant to happen! it was meant to be SO HORRIBLE it would GOAD us into REAL REFORM!"

    And yet, none of them are actually proposing sitting down at the table and negotiating any REAL reform. They just want to cancel the sequester without doing anything about the debt at all.

    You know what kind of reform the sequester was meant to force? ENTITLEMENT reform. If Obama wants to stop the sequester, he can get serious about deficit reduction and put entitlement reform on the table. He can do what the Budget Control Act was designed to do - get both parties to negotiate seriously about spending and deficits and come up with a long term plan to bring down the deficit.

  • R C Dean||

    They just want to cancel the sequester without doing anything about the debt at all.

    That's just not true, Hazel. Obama wants to raise taxes for the second time this year as his price for getting rid of the sequester.

  • ||

    I actually heard some asshole arguing last night on C-SPAN, that "rearranging" the cuts wouldn't "solve the problem" of the sequester, because the reductions in government spending would be exactly the same.

    As in he honestly thought that less spending was a bad thing IN ITSELF.
    His whole problem with the sequester was the fact that it cut any spending at all, not that it was "blunt" or "unintelligent".

    That's the new Democratic line. End the sequester, because more spending is good, and less spending is bad.

  • Virginian||

    Oh, and one of the neocon douchebags at Ace of Spades has decided Amash is a traitor for the GOP for actually trying to get them to live up to their principles.

  • DaveAnthony||

    Signing the sequester was legal, ethical, and wise.

    Does anyone else hear circus music when they see Jay Carney's name?

    Do do doodaloodle do do dooo da...

  • Dr. Frankenstein||

    He's carney folk not circus. Get it straight.

  • mad libertarian guy||

    For those not in the know: Congress passes laws, the president signs them. He shouldn't sign bills he doesn't want to see made law.

    RACIST!!!

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Dear Jay Carney,

    If you say, Buy This Magazine, or We'll Shoot This Dog you have to be willing and able to shoot the fucking dog.

    hth

    xoxo

  • Tulpa (LAOL-PA)||

    Carney's point, if we're charitable enough to assume he has one, is that the sequester was supposed to be a sort of Mutually Assured Destruction. Nobody pursuing MAD in the 1960s actually wanted the US and USSR to be wiped out by nukes, even though their policies were based on precisely that eventuality happening under certain circumstances.

    That said, it's not like BO has offered to point out budget cuts that would be enough to avoid the sequester.

  • ||

    Right, but this is like if After the USSR launches a nuclear attack anyways, the MAD people said "but, we never REALLY MEANT that we'd both destroy eachother, it was just supposed to be a deterrent, so we shouldn't do it!"

    The fact is that Congress DIDN'T DO what the sequester was supposed to get them to do. So we're supposed to just say "OH WELL, I GUESS WE WON'T DO ANYTHING THEN!"

    This is your solution?
    And no, the sequester isn't anything like the moral equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

  • homme nike air max 90||

    Both Congress and the president are responsible for www.shoxinfr.com/nike-shox-nz-c-5.html the sequester and for the general

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement