Anyone surprised by this again exposed seriously stunted comprehension capacity? ~ not me! ~ ~ "live links" to more/corroborating information in the original ~ Sooz

Canceled White House tours, not projected job losses, cause uproar
By Steve Benen - Wed Mar 6, 2013 8:31 AM EST

The White House announced yesterday that it is canceling public tours, citing budget cuts and the fact that sequestration will slash as much as $84 million from the Secret Service budget.


Generally speaking, this is hardly scandalous. The news will no doubt disappoint some tourists, and there's arguably a symbolic significance, but when evaluating the sequester's effects, this seems fairly minor. Indeed, if scrapping tours helps prevent Secret Service furloughs, it's a no-brainer.

It's why it came as something of a surprise when congressional Republicans reacted furiously to the news. The Huffington Post published a sampling of angry responses from GOP lawmakers, and Roll Call noted several more. Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-Wash.), the chair of the House Republican Conference, said, "[I]nstead of making responsible spending cuts, the president has now denied American people access to the White House."

That President Obama has already cut spending -- and proposed even more spending cuts as part of a bipartisan compromise -- is a policy detail that McMorris Rodgers chooses not to understand.

But even putting that aside, I'm struck by what sequestration-related news congressional Republicans find outrageous -- and what sequestration-related news leaves the GOP feeling indifferent.

Jason Linkin's take rings true.


Quite right. The Congressional Budget Office tells lawmakers sequestration would cost the U.S. economy 750,000 jobs, and it doesn't stop Republicans from calling the sequester a "victory." Congress is told the policy will hurt military readiness, and most of the GOP shrugs its shoulders. Republicans are told the sequester will hurt low income families who rely on WIC and Head Start, and GOP officials look the other way.

But told that President Obama is halting White House tours, Republican lawmakers respond, "He did what?"

The congressional GOP may want to revisit its list of priorities.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/06/17208820-canceled-white-house-tours-not-projected-job-losses-cause-uproar?lite

This gambit is personification of "the little boy who cried wolf" ~ or a toddler's temper tantrum ~ it doesn't matter what Obama does ~ if Obama does it or says it, it's WRONG and will make the sky fall and Armageddon kick in ~ the public is tired of the idiocy and pettiness ~ I know this is very difficult, but try to imagine the results if the GOP/TPers put as much energy into trying to make things work as they do into damning everything from the get-go ~ ~ Sooz

The odd preoccupation with White House tours
By Steve Benen - Fri Mar 8, 2013 4:51 PM EST

Someone's going to have to explain this one to me.


Soon after, Fox News' Sean Hannity offered to also "pay for a week" of White House tours out of his own pocket.

If this seems familiar, it's because the offers come on the heels of Republican outrage over the decision to scrap White House tours as a consequence of sequestration budget cuts. Apparently, the president and his team had a choice: cancel the tours or start Secret Service furloughs. They chose the former.

And the right apparently can't stop talking about it, to the point that Fox personalities want to open their wallets to keep the tours going. By some accounts, Fox News has been more than a little preoccupied with the issue.

There may be some deeper symbolic meeting that eludes me -- if there is, I'm all ears -- or perhaps conservatives are vastly more attached to White House tours than I ever realized. Either way, I can't help but wonder about the right's priorities.

Jed Lewison noted today, for example, that the Army was forced to suspend a tuition-assistance program as a result of the sequester, but Bolling and Hannity aren't offering to pick up the tab on this one.


I have to admit, watching news events unfold, it's sometimes easy to find myself saying, "Well, I bet Fox will have a field day with this one."

But White House tours? When sequestration is causing real hardship on real people? I'm at a bit of a loss on this one.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/08/17240092-the-odd-preoccupation-with-white-house-tours?lite

It is beyond my capability to imagine what could be accomplished if all this faux angst and energy were applied to today's real problems ~ ~ Sooz

A matter of priorities
By Steve Benen - Thu Mar 14, 2013 9:25 AM EDT

We learned this week that sequestration cuts will force furloughs for those who help keep Americans' food supply safe, will deny tuition assistance to military veterans, and cause real hardship on low-income Americans who rely on housing assistance.

But for reasons that increasingly defy comprehension, Washington doesn't want to talk about any of these issues or related sequester-related suffering. Instead, the cancelation of White House tours is dominating the Beltway conversation.

[Sooz comment: video accessible via the end link]

By my count, there were eight questions about the tours at yesterday's White House press briefing. George Stephanopoulos wanted to talk about this during a rare interview with President Obama, asking two questions on this. Congressional Republicans wanted to talk about this when the president met with them privately, and they're weighing a new resolution on the issue.

This was a bizarre distraction last week, but yesterday, it seems Washington's interest in the sequestration cuts' effect on White House tours took a farcical turn. The CBO says the sequester will cost the nation 750,000 jobs and the Beltway yawns; the White House says tours will be canceled and the Beltway screams.

It's hard not to wonder why media professionals are playing along with this. Time's Michael Grunwald said reporters are "obsessed" with the tours issue because "Republicans are talking about" it, and I suspect there's something to this. I've long argued that Washington is simply "wired" to advantage Republicans -- it's GOP ideas that get attention; it's GOP talking points that get internalized; it's GOP voices that get aired -- and so it stands to reason that if Republicans care about White House tour cancelations, it's the issue that the president's press secretary will get eight questions on, to the neglect of real sequestration consequences.

‏But that leads to an obvious follow-up question: why do Republicans care about this?

Ezra Klein, who lamented the "gross obsession" with the issue, had a helpful item on this yesterday.


That's not a reassuring answer, and it's certainly not a satisfying answer, but it's an accurate one. Republicans aren't especially concerned with families who'll suffer without housing assistance, because they're not calling the office and they probably won't support GOP candidates anyway. But White House tours? That's different.

But this doesn't change the fact that, given the larger context and real-world consequences of this ridiculous sequestration policy, Washington's preoccupation with these tours is perverse.

http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2013/03/14/17311155-a-matter-of-priorities?lite