Cantor backtracks on his bluff, says he’ll show up to health care meeting with Obama.
Cantor backtracks on his bluff, says he’ll show up to health care meeting with Obama.
House Republican leaders John Boehner (R-OH) and Eric Cantor (R-VA) sent a letter to the White House yesterday, stipulating some preconditions for Republican participation in a bipartisan health care meeting proposed by President Obama. Boehner and Cantor’s letter said that unless Obama was willing to scrap the current health reform proposals, Republicans “would rightly be reluctant to participate.” Their letter was met with some derision from conservatives, who called it “silly” and “politically dangerous.” The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent reported today that Republican insiders said it was unlikely their leaders would follow through on their bluff. Indeed, appearing on Fox News this afternoon, Cantor backtracked on his letter. “We’re going to show up,” he said. Fox host Jane Skinner observed that his letter to the White House “wasn’t in the tone of bipartisanship.” The segment concluded:
SKINNER: But again, quickly, you’re showing up to this televised thing, right?
CANTOR: Absolutely. Republicans have always said, we stand ready and willing to work with this President.
Watch it:
Cantor has stood “ready and willing” to obstruct health care from the beginning. He has been unable to offer any compromises that the GOP would be willing to make; he has lifted Frank Luntz’s language on how to kill reform; and, he has even advised his constituents to seek out “charitable organizations” if they’re in need of medical care.
- Comments
- 94
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Mocks Sarah Palin By Writing ‘Cheat Sheet’ On Her Hand
MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Mocks Sarah Palin By Writing ‘Cheat Sheet’ On Her Hand
On MSNBC’s Daily Rundown this morning, Andrea Mitchell reported that “one of the most interesting things” from Sarah Palin’s appearance at the Tea Party Convention this past weekend was the notes written on her hand. “Very clearly,” Mitchell observed, “were some cheat sheets.”
Mitchell then mocked Palin by displaying her own hand, which had some handwriting on it. Holding up her hand for the camera, Mitchell joked that she wrote some things down “just in case I didn’t remember” what she wanted to say:
Mitchell’s joke then segued into an interesting conversation about the press corps’ treatment of Palin. Host Chuck Todd — seemingly wary of taking a jab at Palin — attempted to defend her by arguing, “We’ve all done notes.” Mitchell responded by astutely noting Palin’s hypocrisy in attacking Obama for using a Teleprompter. “So she takes all these snarky shots at Barack Obama,” Mitchell said, leaving Todd to complete the sentence, “she undermined it a little bit.”
“If Mitt Romney had notes on his hand, wouldn’t we take it pretty seriously?” Mitchell asked. Todd responded, “She has different rules.” Watch the segment:
Podesta Calls On McConnell To Apologize For Denigrating FBI Interrogation Of Abdulmuttalab
Podesta Calls On McConnell To Apologize For Denigrating FBI Interrogation Of Abdulmuttalab
Last week, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) besmirched the reputation of FBI agents who interrogated terrorist Umar Farouq Abdulmutallab after he was arrested. “He was given a 50 minute interrogation, probably Larry King has interrogated people longer and better than that,” McConnell said on Fox News.
This morning on ABC’s This Week, Center for American Progress Action Fund President and CEO John Podesta noted that intelligence agents have skillfully secured the cooperation of Abdulmuttalab’s family. Because his family was assured that Abdulmuttalab was not being tortured, they worked with the FBI to convince the terrorist to talk. Abdulmuttalab then provided intelligence, some of which was apparently used to capture terrorists in Malaysia.
“I think you can huff and puff as former Governor Palin likes to do, but the proof’s in the pudding — he’s talking, they’ve gotten actionable intelligence, they’re acting on it,” Podesta said. When conservative pundit Peggy Noonan complained that the administration shouldn’t have told the public that Abdulmuttalab was cooperating, Podesta suggested disclosure may not have been necessary if political leaders like McConnell weren’t criticizing intelligence agents:
PODESTA: Maybe if all those politicians stopped attacking the FBI – Mitch McConnell likened the FBI to a Larry King interview – maybe if they stopped with the politics –
RUTH MARCUS: Now that’s cruel.
PODESTA: Well, no, I think he owes the FBI an apology. But if they’d stop with the politics, maybe they wouldn’t have to respond.
Watch it:
Later, Podesta defended the FBI: “I tend to listen to the professionals, and other people tend to listen to Governor Palin.”
He also referenced Sen. Richard Shelby’s (R-AL) “blanket hold” on Obama’s 70 executive nominees — two of whom include the head of the State Department intelligence official and the Homeland Security intelligence official. “What gives here?” Podesta asked. “Are these people serious or are they just playing politics?
JOHN BRENNAN: On Christmas night, I called a number of-- senior members of Congress. I spoke to Senators McConnell and Bond. I spoke to Representative Boehner and Hoekstra. I explained to them that he was in F.B.I. custody. That Mr. Abdulmutallab was in fact talking. That he was cooperating at that point. They knew that in F.B.I. custody means that there's a process then you follow as far as mirandizing and presenting him in front of the magistrate. None of those individuals raised any concerns with me, at that point. They didn't say, "Is he going into military custody? Is he going to be mirandized?" They were very appreciative of the information. We told them we'd keep them informed. And that's what we did. So, there's been-- quite a bit of an outcry after the fact. Where again, I'm just very concerned on behalf of the counterterrorism professionals throughout our government that politicians continue to make this a political football. And are using it for whatever political or partisan purposes.
Fox News Military Analyst Endorses DADT Repeal, Criticizes McCain For Flip-Flopping
Fox News Military Analyst Endorses DADT Repeal, Criticizes McCain For Flip-Flopping
This morning, Fox & Friends Weekend hosted Col. David Hunt, a Fox News military analyst, to discuss whether to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.
According to his bio on the Fox News website, Hunt is a retired colonel with “over 29 years of military experience including extensive operational experience in special operations, counter terrorism and intelligence operations.” Hunt generally adheres to the conservative line on national security matters. For instance, he was an advocate for attacking Iraq. And instead of encouraging dialogue with Iran and Syria, Hunt said in 2006, “I think we can talk to them when we line them up and kill them.”
This morning, however, Hunt sided with progressives who are advocating repeal of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Hunt called the discriminatory law “an abject failure” because “we’ve lost somewhere between 11 and 14,000 soldiers.” He continued:
Being brave in the battlefield has nothing to do with how you go to the bathroom or how you have sex. … If you volunteer to serve this great country, we should welcome you, not push you away because of some arcane attitude about sex.
Even Fox host Clayton Morris agreed. “Yeah, it’s like a civil rights issue. I find it absolutely absurd,” Morris said. Then Morris and Hunt took a swipe at Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), who claims to heed the views of military leaders (except those with whom he disagrees):
MORRIS: On the campaign trail, then-Sen. John McCain said, look, when I hear from the military brass that they want to end Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, I’ll get right in line with them. That’s what happened — we heard from Admiral Mullen, we heard from Defense Secretary Gates. … Why is John McCain flip-flopping here?
HUNT: It’s just too damn convenient for McCain to be doing this. … He’s just wrong on this. We’re in a war. We’ve got guys deployed for 8 years in Afghanistan, almost 7 years in Iraq. And somebody says, I want to serve this country. And McCain wants to say, if you’re homosexual, you can’t serve. It’s wrong. We need these kind of people. We need all of them.
Hunt said that the repeal of DADT won’t be “easily accepted” by the military because “it’s a conservative organization,” but it’s still the right thing to do in the long-run. Watch it:
Over the past few days, Fox has given ample airtime to those who defend DADT. Bill Kristol called it a “success.” Ollie North derided repeal as a harmful “social experiment.” Bill O’Reilly opposed repeal because “it’s a morale issue.”
A review of Fox News shows over the past month indicates that Hunt – generally, a regular contributor on Fox News – had not been called upon prior to this morning to offer his views on the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy. Will Hunt be invited on other Fox News shows to discuss his views?
Flashback: Shelby Pledged To Do ‘Whatever It Takes’ To Deliver ‘Up Or Down’ Votes On Bush Nominees
Flashback: Shelby Pledged To Do ‘Whatever It Takes’ To Deliver ‘Up Or Down’ Votes On Bush Nominees
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) is attracting a great deal of attention for putting a “blanket hold” on all 70 of President Obama’s pending executive nominations in order secure pork for his state. According to congressional experts, Shelby’s hold is both a “rare” and “aggressive” abuse of his power.
Unsurprisingly, Shelby had quite a very different attitude when a Republican sat in the White House. In early ’05 — shortly after winning his fourth term to the Senate — Shelby complained, “Far too many of the President’s nominees were never afforded an up or down vote, because several Democrats chose to block the process for political gain.” He added, “Inaction on these nominees is a disservice to the American people.”
In Feb. 2005, Shelby specifically promised his constituents in Tuscaloosa that he’d do “whatever it takes” to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees, including killing the filibuster:
Shelby also pledged to do “whatever it takes” to confirm Bush’s judicial nominees. A vast majority of Bush’s appointees were confirmed in his first term, but a few controversial ones were filibustered by Democrats in the Senate.
One such nominee is former Alabama Attorney General Bill Pryor, who Bush nominated more than two years ago to sit on the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.
With at least one Supreme Court vacancy expected in Bush’s next term, some Republicans are considering changing the rules of the Senate to force a vote, and likely confirm Bush’s appointees. Shelby said he’d support that option if Democrats continue to filibuster.
Later that year, the Senate struck a compromise to avert changing the filibuster rules. Shelby was quick to register his disapproval:
I do not think that any of us want to operate in an environment where federal judicial nominees must receive 60 votes in order to be confirmed. To that end I firmly support changing the Senate rules to require that a simple majority be necessary to confirm all judicial nominees, thus ending the continuous filibuster of them.
By invoking his “blanket hold” yesterday, Shelby is now forcing Senate Democrats to “secure a 60-member cloture vote to break it, or until Shelby lifts the hold.” Unless, of course, Shelby is still “firmly” in favor of changing the Senate rules so that only 51 votes would be required to break his filibuster.
Former McCain adviser Mark Zandi: The ‘stimulus was key’ to the strong 4th quarter growth of U.S. economy.
Former McCain adviser Mark Zandi: The ‘stimulus was key’ to the strong 4th quarter growth of U.S. economy.
Today, the Commerce Department reported that the U.S. economy grew at 5.7 percent from October through December, a “better-than-expected gain.” The expansion was the fastest in six years. White House economic adviser Christina Romer said the report is “the most positive news to date” on the economy. Speaking on Bloomberg television today, Mark Zandi — who was an adviser to John McCain’s presidential campaign — heralded the positive numbers as a result of the stimulus passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Obama last February:
I think stimulus was key to the 4th quarter. It was really critical to business fixed investment because there was a tax bonus depreciation in the stimulus that expired in December and juiced up fixed investment. And also, it was very critical to housing and residential investment because of the housing tax credit. And the decline in government spending would have been measurably greater without the money from the stimulus. So the stimulus was very, very important in the 4th quarter.
Watch it:
Axelrod Struggles To Explain Why Obama’s Spending Freeze Doesn’t Include Defense Funding
Axelrod Struggles To Explain Why Obama’s Spending Freeze Doesn’t Include Defense Funding
Yesterday, ThinkProgress joined a handful of journalists for a wide-ranging discussion with David Axelrod, Senior Adviser to President Obama. In his State of the Union address on Wednesday night, Obama announced a discretionary spending freeze that excluded the massive budgets of the Departments of Defense and Homeland Security.
“Can you tell the American people that there aren’t any savings to be found in the Defense and Homeland Security budgets?” ThinkProgress asked Axelrod. The President’s Senior Adviser acknowledged, no, “I can’t tell you that” there aren’t savings which can be found there.
Axelrod highlighted prior efforts by the administration to rein in defense spending and insisted that further cuts could still be made. Yet the Pentagon budget — which is expected to exceed $700 billion when Obama unveils his budget on Feb. 1st — remains inexplicably exempt from the spending freeze.
“We live in a dangerous world,” Axelrod said in trying to justify the special exclusion for the defense budget. “What we can’t do at a time when we’re in two wars and we have a very determined enemy in Al Qaeda, we can’t stand down,” he added in an interview with Fox News. Yet, rather than carve out an exclusion to fund troops in the field, the administration opted for a more expansive exclusion. And while cuts might indeed be made to certain programs, the overall Pentagon budget will be allowed to increase without having to face the difficult tradeoffs that other departments will.
Asked whether politics played any part in the decision to carve out a special exclusion for national security-related budgets, Axelrod denied that it did. “There weren’t any meetings that I was in where that was talked about,” he told us.
As Center for American Progress Senior Fellow Lawrence Korb has argued, “If President Obama is serious about controlling spending, he can’t exempt the Pentagon.” And House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) concurs, telling reporters yesterday that the entire defense budget “should not be exempted” from the freeze.
King and Bachmann hatch plan to ‘foment revolution’ with ‘Declaration of Health Care Independence.’
King and Bachmann hatch plan to ‘foment revolution’ with ‘Declaration of Health Care Independence.’
The Sioux City Journal reports that Reps. Steve King (R-IA) and Michele Bachmann (R-MN) are teaming up to introduce a “Declaration of Health Care Independence.” “We demand Constitutional protection of the right to make our own health decisions and our own health care choices free of government denials, bureaucratic red tape and greater intergenerational debt,” reads the declaration’s “Preamble.” When Bachmann first floated the idea a couple of weeks ago, King said it “lit up for me.” Bachmann, too, is quite fond of King, floating him as a potential presidential candidate last year. The Hill explains that Bachmann, King, and a few other right-wing congressmen have been meeting privately to collaborate on a plan to revolt against their Party leaders:
Conservative lawmakers, including Reps. Steve King (Iowa), Michele Bachmann (Minn.), Louie Gohmert (Texas) and John Shadegg (Ariz.), have been meeting privately to “foment revolution,” according to a source involved in the discussions. […]
King said the group’s effort is aimed at getting “aggressive” on pushing conservative policy alternatives. […]
One Republican member seeking anonymity explained that the group of rabble-rousers is frustrated not only with the conference leaders but also with the leadership of Republican Study Committee (RSC) Chairman Tom Price (Ga.).
Bachmann said the Republican Party is “waking up” to the fact that “the country isn’t working anymore.”
Ingraham: Americans Are Saying ‘Maybe That Bush Guy Wasn’t Quite As Bad As We Thought’
Ingraham: Americans Are Saying ‘Maybe That Bush Guy Wasn’t Quite As Bad As We Thought’
This morning, the Fox & Friends crew whined about how the Obama administration “continues to bash President Bush.” It’s a “tactic that has apparently run out of gas,” co-host Steve Doocy said, likely referring to a recent Politico article titled “Democrats’ Bush-bashing strategy goes bust.” Fox then invited contributor Laura Ingraham to comment on the matter:
INGRAHAM: You know when it looked really ridiculous is when President Bush was standing so graciously next to President Obama and President Clinton at the White House. He couldn’t have been more gracious, he couldn’t have been more kind, couldn’t have been more generous.
After everything they’ve said about him and after all the times they’ve trashed him in the past several months, that shows you the character of that man. And I think that’s why a lot of people in these polls are now saying, “Well, maybe that Bush guy wasn’t quite as bad as we thought.”
Watch it:
Ingraham is living in a fantasy world. According to the latest polls released this month, Bush’s job approval ratings have hovered consistently in the low 30s, only a tiny bit above the high 20s he left office with.
Moreover, according to a Rasmussen survey conducted earlier this month, a majority of Americans (51 percent) still blame Bush for our nation’s economic woes. A separate Quinnipiac poll said voters blame Bush more than Obama (55-20 percent) for the current economic conditions. And, in the latest Washington Post/ABC News poll, 67 percent of respondents said Bush deserves a “great deal” of blame for the country’s economic situation.
And of course, while it’s inconvenient for the right wing to acknowledge this, the reason the American public holds such a consistently negative view of President Bush is because his policies did in fact sink this nation into a fiscal mess.
Obama: I’d rather be a ‘really good one-term president’ than ‘mediocre two-term president.’
Obama: I’d rather be a ‘really good one-term president’ than ‘mediocre two-term president.’
In an interview with ABC’s Diane Sawyer that will be aired tonight, President Obama said he will not back off his agenda despite the political hazards that might lie ahead:
“I’d rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,” he told ABC’s “World News” anchor Diane Sawyer in an exclusive interview today. […]
“You know, there is a tendency in Washington to believe our job description, of elected officials, is to get reelected. That’s not our job description,” Obama said. “Our job description is to solve problems and to help people.”
Seated across from Sawyer in the White House, the president added, “I don’t want to look back on my time here and say to myself all I was interested in was nurturing my own popularity.”
Read the full transcript here.
Gibbs responds: I told Ed Schultz he was intentionally lying to ‘get people to watch his show.’
Gibbs responds: I told Ed Schultz he was intentionally lying to ‘get people to watch his show.’
As ThinkProgress first reported yesterday, MSNBC host Ed Schultz told a progressive gathering in Minnesota that he recently engaged in a testy confrontation with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs. In an off-the-air conversation, Schultz told Gibbs he was “full of sh*t,” leading Gibbs to respond with “the f-bomb.” The Plum Line’s Greg Sargent followed up with Gibbs to explain what happened:
[Gibbs] says he pointedly accused Schultz of misleading viewers about the Dem health care plan in order to “get people to watch his show.” […]
Asked about Schultz’s account, Gibbs emailed that in their private talk, he strongly took issue with Schultz’s claim that the health care bill is a gift to the insurance industry.
Gibbs adds that he demanded Schultz tell him “why he’d tell his viewers something so completely and knowingly wrong in an attempt to get people to watch his show.”
The White House has tried repeatedly to dispute the concern that health insurance companies would profit from the current reform proposal. In November, White House health policy adviser Nancy-Ann DeParle argued that “insurance companies will profit if status quo remains.” And in December, White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer argued that insurance companies wouldn’t be spending vast amounts of money to lobby against the bill if it were good for them.
White House Signals That It Will Fight Back Against GOP Abuse Of Filibuster
White House Signals That It Will Fight Back Against GOP Abuse Of Filibuster
The Republican minority in the Senate has used and abused the practice of filibusters to obstruct the Democrats’ agenda. The number of Senate cloture votes, which require a supermajority of 60, “more than doubled — from 54 to 112 — from the 109th Congress (2005-2006) to the 110th (2007-2008), according to the Senate historical office.” James Fallows points to this Wikipedia chart for evidence of how “a-historical the current Senate practice” is:
The White House is giving new indications that it is preparing to go to battle against this abuse. At a fundraiser last week, Vice President Joe Biden said, “No democracy has survived needing a supermajority.”
Biden’s communications director, Jay Carney, further made the case: “When one looks at the soaring number of cloture votes required to do business in the Senate — double the numbers of a decade ago, triple the numbers of 20 years ago — it raises a legitimate question about whether this power is being used to protect the minority or merely to obstruct action and progress.”
In an interview today with TV One’s Roland Martin, White House senior adviser David Axelrod waded into the controversy:
“The Republican strategy in the Senate is to turn 50 into 60, in other words no longer do you need a majority to carry the day in the Senate. You need 60 votes for everything because the Republicans are filibustering every single bill,” he said. “We need to call that out, and they need to explain to the American people whether throwing a wrench into everything at a time of national emergency is the appropriate policy. They want to win and election and take us back to the policies that got us into this mess in the first place.”
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) has proposed legislation that would gradually lower the number of votes the Senate majority would need to block filibusters from 60 to, ultimately, a simple majority. More and more Democratic Senators appear to be increasingly agitated about the issue. Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA) told blogger-activist Mike Stark this week that the Democratic caucus was “working through” how to get around the 60-vote threshold for moving legislation. Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-MI) told Rachel Maddow this past week that she “would love” to change the filibuster rule, but that it’s “not realistic.” And today on ABC’s This Week, Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ) railed against the Republicans’ “unprecedented” use of the filibuster.
Ed Schultz Tells Robert Gibbs He’s ‘Full Of Sh*t’ And ‘You’re Losing Your Base’
Ed Schultz Tells Robert Gibbs He’s ‘Full Of Sh*t’ And ‘You’re Losing Your Base’
Last night, MSNBC’s Ed Schultz spoke at Minnesota progressive talk radio AM950’s Blue State Bash at the Minneapolis Convention Center. During his remarks, Schultz revealed that he recently had a testy confrontation with White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs (Gibbs appeared on Schultz’s show this past Thursday). “Mr. Gibbs and I had quite a conversation off the air the other night,” he revealed:
SCHULTZ: I told him he was full of sh*t is what I told him. … And then he gave me the Dick Cheney f-bomb. … I told Robert Gibbs, I said “And I’m sorry you’re swearing at me, but I’m just trying to help you out. I’m telling you you’re losing your base. Do you understand you’re losing your base?”
Watch it (video posted by TheUptake):
Schultz also noted that April 7 will be his first anniversary of his TV show, a date that coincides with Sarah Palin’s scheduled appearance on behalf of Michele Bachmann in Minnesota. Schultz — resides in Minnesota — made this pledge to the audience:
If all of you here will make a commitment to me tonight that if I bring my TV show right across the street from where they’re doing their rally, you’ll all show up. [applause] That a deal? Ok, we’ll do it. [...]
We need to get rid of Michele Bachmann. [applause] Any congressional member who thinks that members of Congress should be investigated for their anti-American views doesn’t understand what voting is all about.
Exit Survey Of Massachusetts Voters Confirms Lack Of Enthusiasm Among Progressives Hurt Coakley
Exit Survey Of Massachusetts Voters Confirms Lack Of Enthusiasm Among Progressives Hurt Coakley
An exit survey of Massachusetts voters confirms that “decreased turnout among constituencies that historically have voted for progressive candidates,” combined with a strong Republican performance among independents, delivered Scott Brown the margins he needed to win.
The poll, which was commissioned by “Women’s Voices, Women Vote” and conducted by Lake Research Partners (a firm headed by Martha Coakley’s pollster Celinda Lake), found that key demographic supporters of Obama (unmarried women, people of color, and younger voters) did not turn out in large numbers for Democrats. The Massachusetts turnout reflects recent trends in the Virginia and New Jersey gubernatorial elections.
Martha Coakley reportedly did “no outreach” to communities of color and neglected to do any advertising in the African-American or Hispanic media. Voters under age of 40 went to Brown by a margin of 52% to 46%. But younger voters in general turned out at lower rates than in the past. The percentage of unmarried women who comprised the percentage of all voters fell 5 points from 2008. And, self-identified independents flocked to Brown in droves — 76% to 21%.
But even despite the depressed progressive turnout in yesterday’s election, a majority of voters (51%) still felt Obama and the Democrats are taking the country in the right direction. Issues, while important to voters, split along partisan lines: Coakley won health care voters, while Brown won among jobs and economy voters and tax/spending voters:
– Forty-six (46%) of voters said their vote was mainly to show support for health care reform rather than to show opposition to it (35%).
– Independents sent a clearer signal on the issue, with 44% stating their vote was mainly in opposition to reform and 30% saying it was mainly in support.
– Coakley voters were stronger in their support for reform (80% said their vote was mainly in support of reform) than Brown voters were in opposition to it (65% said their vote was mainly in opposition to reform).
– Coakley won among voters who rated health care reform a “10” on an importance scale (Coakley 53% to 47% for Brown), Brown won among voters who said the same for jobs and the economy (Brown 55% to 44% for Coakley) and won bigger among voters who highlighted taxes and spending (Brown 70% to Coakley 29%).
Many pundits are leaping to blame progressives. Glenn Beck said yesterday, “The progressive movement is sucking the blood out of each of the parties.” Conservative Democrat Lanny Davis said “blame the left for Massachusetts.” While there’s plenty of blame to go around, one thing that’s certain is that the progressive base’s current lack of enthusiasm is hurting Democratic candidates.
Brown wins Massachusetts special election; Coakley concedes.
Brown wins Massachusetts special election; Coakley concedes.
The press is reporting that Democrat Martha Coakley has called to concede to Republican Scott Brown in the Massachusetts Senate special election. The AP has called the race for Brown, who takes over the Senate seat that “had been held for more than half a century by Edward M. Kennedy or his brother, John F. Kennedy.” The Republican will finish Kennedy’s unexpired term, facing re-election in 2012.
Tonight, Scott Brown made history by exceeding all expectations and defeating Martha Coakley in the heart of the Democrat Party’s political stronghold. I extend my sincere congratulations to Scott, the Brown family, and his team on their tremendous come from behind victory to become the first Republican U.S. Senator from Massachusetts in more than 30 years. His message of lower-taxes, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility clearly resonated with independent-minded voters in Massachusetts who were looking for a solution to decades of failed Democrat leadership. There is no doubt in my mind that Scott will provide the representation and leadership they have asked for and deserve. Now that the people of Massachusetts have made their choice clear, the Senate must move quickly to seat Senator-Elect Brown so that the people have their chosen representative in the Senate as soon as possible. Over the past year, independent voters in Virginia, New Jersey and now Massachusetts have made their voices heard by sending a clear message that they’ve had enough of the binge spending and government-growing agenda coming from Washington – Democrats everywhere are officially on notice.
It goes without saying that we are disappointed in tonight's result. There will be plenty of time to dissect this race and to apply the lessons learned from it those to come this fall - but in the meantime we will continue to work tirelessly on behalf of the America people and we will redouble our efforts to lay out a clear choice for voters this November. I want to thank our state parties and our DNC and Organizing for America staff and volunteers all across the country who have worked tirelessly on this campaign and who will continue to support President Obama and work for the change we all believe is essential to getting our nation moving in the right direction again.
Successful search-and-rescue mission in Haiti brings chants of ‘U.S.A., U.S.A.’ from the crowd.
Successful search-and-rescue mission in Haiti brings chants of ‘U.S.A., U.S.A.’ from the crowd.
This past weekend, a U.S. search-and-rescue team from Los Angeles pulled a woman from the rubble of a collapsed building. The large Haitian crowd assembled outside the scene responded with exuberant cheers of “U.S.A., U.S.A.” LA County Fire Capt. Bill Monahan “said it brought his team to tears.” The rescue team then proceeded to dig out “three more women from under three stories of another collapsed building.” The White House press office sent reporters this video of the scene:
Tea Party divide: Some complain of being ‘ignored’ by RNC, while others warn of being ‘hijacked by GOP.’
Tea Party divide: Some complain of being ‘ignored’ by RNC, while others warn of being ‘hijacked by GOP.’
The “tea party” movement can’t seem to find a happy balance in its power-sharing relationship with the Republican Party. The Washington Times reports today that Dale Robertson, head of TeaParty.org, is complaining of being ignored by the GOP. “I have called into the RNC many times, and they still haven’t called me back,” Robertson said. “I’ve called them, lots of times. I called them this morning. I called them yesterday. It’s like they ignore you as they try to figure out a strategy on how to defeat you.” But some tea party organizers, like Texas-based Shane Brooks is advocating that tea partiers ignore the GOP. TPM’s Zachary Roth notes that Brooks has posted a YouTube video urging fellow activists to “boycott the National Tea Party Convention.” “We must not allow the Tea Parties and other patriotic grassroots movement to be hijacked by the GOP,” Brooks wrote. Watch it:
While the RNC can’t seem to return Robertson’s phone calls, it is more than happy to pander to the tea partiers. Last May, RNC Chairman Michael Steele said, “‘Change…is being delivered in a tea bag. And that’s a wonderful thing.” More recently, Steele has said he “embraces” the tea party movement and has claimed he’d be a protester if he weren’t in his current position.
Chavez Attacks U.S. Efforts In Haiti: ‘They Are Occupying Haiti Undercover’
Chavez Attacks U.S. Efforts In Haiti: ‘They Are Occupying Haiti Undercover’
Yesterday, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez issued a condemnatory broadside against the Obama administration’s efforts to help Haiti recover from the recent devastating 7.0-magnitude earthquake:
I read that 3,000 soldiers are arriving, Marines armed as if they were going to war. There is not a shortage of guns there, my God. Doctors, medicine, fuel, field hospitals, that’s what the United States should send,” Chavez said on his weekly television show. “They are occupying Haiti undercover.”
“On top of that, you don’t see them in the streets. Are they picking up bodies? … Are they looking for the injured? You don’t see them. I haven’t seen them. Where are they?”
Chavez’s claims are wholly uninformed. While there are nearly 6,000 U.S. military personnel assisting in Haiti (with another 7,500 on the way), they are enabling the recovery effort to proceed. Thanks to efforts by the U.S. military to secure the airport, the pace of the air traffic into Port-au-Prince carrying food and supplies for victims “has increased from 60 flights to about a 100 a day.” U.S. forces are providing security at the request of the Haitian government.
Moreover, more than 250 personnel from the Department of Health and Human Services “are in the process of deploying to Haiti and over 12,000 personnel could possibly assist in the coming days.” Additionally, “2 planeloads of medicine, medical equipment and supplies from HHS have arrived in Haiti with a third” on the way. The Navy hospital ship USNS Comfort “has left its home port of Baltimore to support relief efforts in Haiti.”
Lastly, there are 26 international search and rescue teams in Haiti, including teams from Fairfax County Virginia, Los Angeles, Virginia Beach, two from Miami, and one from New York. U.S. teams have rescued at least 26 individuals already.
As for the U.S.’s intentions in Haiti, we are not there to occupy but rather “to save lives.” As President Obama said last week, “this is a time when we are reminded of the common humanity that we all share. With just a few hundred miles of ocean between us and a long history that binds us together, Haitians are neighbors of the Americas and here at home. So we have to be there for them in their hour of need.” Denis McDonough, chief of staff for the National Security Council, added, “The one thing I don’t think any of us will apologize for is the hard work in support of relieving the suffering of the Haitian people.”
Kerry: ‘The only thing Republicans say yes to are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, tea partiers, and Fox News.’
Kerry: ‘The only thing Republicans say yes to are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, tea partiers, and Fox News.’
Campaigning for Massachusetts Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley on Friday, Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) took a shot the “party of no.” Kerry argued that while Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration focused on governing for the past year, “the Republicans did nothing but say no.” After ticking off a list of items the Republicans have opposed, Kerry concluded:
They made a calculated political decision that they would say no to governance, create anger, and then let the anger fall on those who are struggling to make the choices and these tough decisions. And now, they have the gall to want to receive a bonus for doing it.
Well my friends, the only things the Republicans say yes to are Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, tea partiers, and Fox News.
Watch it:
McConnell On Health Reform: ‘It Would Be Good For The Country If It Failed’
McConnell On Health Reform: ‘It Would Be Good For The Country If It Failed’
This morning on Fox News Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) argued that the country would benefit from the failure to pass health reform:
HUME: Let’s assume that for the purpose of this question, which is in raw political terms is it better for the Democrats and worse for the Republicans if the bill passes or if it fails?
MCCONNELL: What’s important is it would be good for the country if it failed.
“I think the politics are toxic for the Democrats either way,” McConnell told host Brit Hume. “Whether it passes or whether it fails, it will be a huge issue not just in 2010 but in 2012,” he said. Watch it:
It’s telling that McConnell believes that a Senate health reform bill which would cover more than 30 million uninsured Americans while reducing the deficit is bad for America. McConnell appears to have made a political calculus that health care reform must be defeated in order to help Republicans’ electoral prospects.
Ironically, when Rush Limbaugh declared “I hope Obama fails” shortly before the President’s inauguration, McConnell strenuously disagreed. “No one wants Obama to fail,” McConnell said. But by the end of the year, McConnell’s aides were calling Limbaugh “to explain their tactics” to defeat Obama. “McConnell’s office did call here and say that they are opposing this,” Limbaugh informed his audience.
As President Obama has said, “You can’t just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done.” But that is in fact what McConnell is doing.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll