GINGRICH: I think most Americans realize that in the long run we need the oil.

TP: We do?

GINGRICH: So that we’re not dependent on –

TP: Do you think California and the East Coast are going to be off the table?

GINGRICH: No.

TP: Or do you think that’s an option?

GINGRICH: I don’t think so because I think that there was a specific mistake made. I think it can be fixed. It’s the first oil well big problem in American since 1969. So I think when people put it in perspective it’ll be fine.

Watch the video:

Gingrich’s refusal to take drilling off of California and the East Coast off the table is a move that places the former House Speaker in opposition to prominent figures on the right including Gov. Schwarzenegger and Gov. Crist who have declared their opposition to offshore drilling.

Gingrich’s eagerness to downplay the ramifications of the spill should come as no surprise to those who have been following his career closely. In February, Edelman representative André Carter confirmed that American Petroleum Institute was “sharing resources, coordinating efforts” with Gingrich’s group, American Solutions for Winning the Future. Indeed, ASWF’s “Drill Here, Drill Now” campaign continues as the BP oil rig disaster worsens.

After singing praise of the tea party, ThinkProgress asked Gingrich to comment on the anti-Rand Paul ads that American Future Fund ran in the final days of the Kentucky primary. Gingrich bizarrely appeared to be clueless about the organization, saying “I don’t know who that is” and refusing further comment. Ironically, the event that Gingrich was headling at that very moment was organized by the GOP front group.

On the Recovery Act

“The Senate would do us all a great favor if it started again from scratch.”
– Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), 2/4/09

“Start over again on this bill and retarget it.”
– Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), 2/12/09

On Health Care Reform

“How much longer do Americans have to wait before Democrat leaders will give up this partisan quest and agree to start over?”
– Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY), 3/10/10

“We should either scrap this bill completely and throw it away and forget about it. Or scrap it and start over again.”
– Rep. John Fleming (R-LA), 3/17/10

On Wall Street Reform

“Look, there’s no rush right now. We need to get it right.”
– Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), 4/21/10

“Start over please, Mr. President.”
– Fox News’ Steve Doocy, Karl Rove, 4/19/10

Rather than engage in substantive debate over reform, Republicans decided early on that they would lie about the legislation and slow down its progress. Instead of trying to fix the mess created by their own Party, Republicans are using a rhetorical ploy to confuse the public and kill reform. Over and over again.

ThinkProgress has compiled a video documenting the Republican calls to “slow down” and “start over” over the past year. Watch it:

Ultimately, Republican efforts to stall, slow, and stop progress on the stimulus and health care reform failed. Hopefully, history repeats itself in the course of Wall Street reform debate.

TP: Do you think this attack, this terrorist attack, was motivated at all by a lot of the anti-tax rhetoric that’s popular in America right now?

KING: I think if we’d abolished the IRS back when I first advocated it, he wouldn’t have a target for his airplane. And I’m still for abolishing the IRS, I’ve been for it for thirty years and I’m for a national sales tax. [...] It’s sad the incident in Texas happened, but by the same token, it’s an agency that is unnecessary and when the day comes when that is over and we abolish the IRS, it’s going to be a happy day for America.

TP: So some of his grievances were legitimate?

KING: I don’t know if his grievances were legitimate, I’ve read part of the material. I can tell you I’ve been audited by the IRS and I’ve had the sense of ‘why is the IRS in my kitchen.’ Why do they have their thumb in the middle of my back. … It is intrusive and we can do a better job without them entirely.

Today, King spoke at FreedomWorks‘ Tax Day Tea Party Rally in Washington, D.C. I caught up with him to get further clarification about his remarks, asking, “Do you regret what you said when you justified the attack against the IRS building?”

King initially tried to ignore me by walking away, but when I repeated my question, the congressman forcefully grabbed my arm and angrily accused me of calling him a murderer. Still holding onto my arm, King got just inches from my face and told me to shut off my camera. Here’s our exchange:

TP: It is tax day and you justified the murder of American federal employees at CPAC.

KING: Are you accusing me of that? Are you accusing me of that? Turn that camera off. I’m not going to have those allegations. You accuse me of murder. That is despicable behavior.

TP: I’m sorry — I did not say that, I did not say that.

KING: That is despicable behavior for any American on this earth to do such a thing.

TP: The camera is off –

KING: We are done.

I complied with King’s demand that my camera be turned off. However, ThinkProgress had a second camera at the event, and we captured the entire exchange on video. Watch it:

What the left wants to do is say we’re the party of no […] So here’s what I want to ask you to encourage every candidate that you know, every incumbent you know, every staff person you know, every consultant you know. I think we should decide we’re going to be the Party of Yes.

Gingrich can expect an uphill battle as he attempts to re-frame the GOP as anything other than the party of obstructionism, given that the right wing seems most excited about the prospect of stopping anything Obama wants to do. After Gingrich delivered the call, it didn’t take long for Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin to double down on their party’s obstructionism, touting the nickname “The Party of Hell No.”

Think Progress compiled a video illustrating the Republican confusion. Watch it:

With Republicans saying no to Wall Street reform, no to an extension of unemployment benefits, and preemptively saying no to the next Supreme Court appointee, it seems the GOP could resolve its internal conundrum by sticking to calling themselves “The Party of Hell No.”

In 2005, Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH) famously defended reconciliation as “majority rules.” Think Progress has compiled a video of some of these 34 senators who have, in the past, defended reconciliation and railed against the filibuster. Some highlights:

– “If you’ve got 51 votes for your position, you win.” — Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH), 3/15/05

– “For some time, I hoped that my colleagues who oppose reform would allow a majority in both bodies to prevail and do what the vast majority of the American public desires.” — Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), 10/15/99

– “It [the filibuster] is the product of a rule of the Senate passed many years after the ratification of the Constitution. This rule does not derive from the authority of the Constitution.” — Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO), 5/19/05

– “Filibusters are neither an idea of the founding fathers nor a historical tradition of the Senate.” — Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), 4/27/05

Watch it:

The full list of Senate Republicans who have used reconciliation to pass major domestic policy, as well as a list of those pieces of legislation can be found after the jump:

Major domestic policy legislation that these 34 Senators have voted for through reconciliation in the past 20 years: Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990, Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, Balanced Budget Act of 1995, Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996, Balanced Budget Act of 1997, Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act of 1999, Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2000, Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001, Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005, College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007

Hatch appeared to feel differently about reform proposals just a few months ago. In September, Hatch indicated he agreed with the President’s assertion that both parties agree on 80 percent of health reform:

MS. MITCHELL: Well, he did talk about some of the things that you and John McCain had proposed. He included one provision from Senator McCain. Was that enough of an effort to reach out to Republicans?

SEN. HATCH: Well, he made the point that about 80 percent of what they’re talking about we probably could agree on. But it’s the 20 percent where all the money is where we have a lot of disagreements, for instance, he was saying, basically, that they’re going to have a public plan, one form or another, that they’re going to have an employer mandate. […] I’m willing to work them out with him. [MSNBC, 9/10/09]

Neither of Hatch’s two major points of contention in September appear in the President’s health reform proposal from Wednesday: a public option and an employer mandate. With these two components absent from Obama’s plan, it will be interesting to see what new strategy Republicans will employ to obstruct substantive health care reform.

I have been to enough college campuses to know if you are 30 or younger this climate issue is not a debate. It’s a value. These young people grew up with recycling and a sensitivity to the environment — and the world will be better off for it. They are not brainwashed. … From a Republican point of view, we should buy into it and embrace it and not belittle them. You can have a genuine debate about the science of climate change, but when you say that those who believe it are buying a hoax and are wacky people you are putting at risk your party’s future with younger people.

It’s a hopeful sign that at least one leading Senate Republican is acknowledging the fact that Americans want clean energy reform. According to the Benenson Strategy Group, 58 percent of voters in 16 battleground states support a cap-and-trade bill like the House-passed American Clean Energy and Security Act that invests in clean, renewable energy sources. The same poll shows that Americans desire regulation of carbon polluters so much that 59 percent of voters believe the Environmental Protection Agency should act on the issue if Congress does not.

The Republican figures behind the American Action Network have a long history and symbiotic relationship with Wall Street. Here’s a breakdown of the key players in the group:

The Wall Street Republicans behind American Action Network

Robert K. Steel
Former Goldman Sachs Exec & Wachovia CEO
Robert Steel spent close to 30 years with Goldman Sachs before joining his Goldman colleague Henry Paulson in the Treasury Department. Steel and Paulson helped ensure that Bush’s 2008 Wall Street bailout would leave Goldman “among the biggest beneficiaries of the $700 billion U.S. plan.”

Kenneth Langone
Home Depot Founder, Investment Banker
Wall Street titan Kenneth Langone was called “The Man Behind Grasso’s Payday” after NYSE Chairman Richard Grasso was awarded $139.5 million amidst controversy over Wall Street excesses in 2004. Langone, chair of the compensation committee, defended the exuberant pay, arguing that Grasso was entitled to the amount. Then-NY AG Eliot Spitzer filed a lawsuit against the NYSE — including Langone — charging that “the board of the NYSE was misled about parts” of Grasso’s compensation. In 2004, a businessman in Florida also sued Langone for $1.8 billion. The suit charged him with “conspiring to interfere and interfering with business relationships,” as well as “extortion, defamation, fraudulent misrepresentation, and violations of the Florida Antitrust Act and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act.”

Ed Gillespie
Fmr RNC Chairman, Lobbyist
Ed Gillespie’s lobbying firm includes a host of clients whose interests are grounded in Wall Street: Enron, Citibank, Bank of America, Zurich Financial, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the “clean coal” front group ACCCE.

Fred Malek
Thayer Capital Partners Founder
Fred Malek is a super-wealthy Republican operative who got his start with the Nixon administration. The former co-owner of the Texas Rangers with George W. Bush was responsible for a 1972 scheme that was investigated by the Senate Watergate Committee to politicize broad segments of the federal government in favor of reelecting Nixon. In 2004, Malek “was fined $250,000 for what the SEC called a ‘fraudulent scheme.’”

It is clear that the parties involved in forming the American Action Network all have a history of fighting for pro-corporate policies. Malek already summed up what we can expect from the group going into the future: “My strength is loyalty, my downfall is loyalty.”

In July, the organization declared its support for Citizens United in an amicus brief arguing that there is “no basis for restricting its core First Amendment right to engage in independent electoral advocacy.” In spite of the fact that the U.S. Chamber has topped lobbying spending year after year, the group had the gall to complain to the Supreme Court that its voice is being “suppressed”:

In particular, the electoral advocacy of the Chamber – a not-for-profit corporation – and of millions of its corporate members has been suppressed. This has occurred even though 96% of Chamber members are businesses with fewer than 100 employees, far from the immense aggregations of wealth hypothesized in Austin. Suppression has been imposed even when candidates have directly attacked business interests and when corporations have unique and valuable insight into the likely consequences of electing or defeating particular candidates. Although this Court has protected the ability of corporations to discuss “issues,” that is no substitute for direct and explicit speech about candidates.

After complaining about its influence being “suppressed,” the Chamber just disclosed that it spent a whopping $123 million to influence federal policy in 2009. Of all the corporations and associations spending money in D.C., the U.S. Chamber tops them all. The Chamber admitted to Roll Call that it was not “suppressed,” but rather, was “active in all of the major debates”:

“It shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone because it was an incredibly active year for the president and the economy,” said Tita Freeman, a chamber spokeswoman. “Hence the chamber was active in all of the major debates that impacted the economy and business community.”

Freeman said the big spike in spending in the fourth quarter was due largely to health care, including issue ads, meetings and letter-writing campaigns.

Aside from health care, the chamber listed a slew of other lobbying issues, including energy and climate change legislation, endangered species regulatory processes, executive compensation and travel promotion.

The Chamber isn’t happy with simply influencing Congress and the administration. It wants more — specifically, the opportunity to purchase its own fleet of friendly lawmakers.

As many federal lawmakers and the Obama administration push for cap-and-trade legislation, health care reform, regulatory reform, and corporate tax reform, the U.S. Chamber stands as the most well-funded opposition to progressive change. The group spent $10-$20 million of insurance-industry-provided cash on fighting reform. After Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts, the Chamber was quick to congratulate itself for running television ads in support of the candidate.

Between Brown’s election victory and the Supreme Court ruling, the most anti-reform corporations in the country are circling their wagons and their wallets around the U.S. Chamber and its fight to increase corporate influence in American politics at the expense of the average American. Today’s Citizens United ruling is a gift by the court’s conservative justices to their efforts.

“I am thrilled to be joining the great talent and management team at Fox News. It’s wonderful to be part of a place that so values fair and balanced news.“

Fox News has long maintained a cozy relationship with the GOP’s former vice presidential candidate. Before her so-called bus tour, Palin posted a list of interviews she expected to appear in, mostly with Fox News personalities. Weeks later, Fox News was forced to issue an apology after Think Progress called out the network for recycling old campaign footage as massive bus tour rallies.

Update

Fox Nation is already celebrating the get:

Though Nancy Pelosi and friends have tried to call “death panels” the “lie of the year,” this type of rationing – what the CBO calls “reduc[ed] access to care” and “diminish[ed] quality of care” – is precisely what I meant when I used that metaphor.

This should sound familiar to those who have been closely following Palin’s year-and-a-half in the spotlight. After Palin made the jaw-dropping claim that Alaska’s proximity to Russia counts as foreign policy experience, the McCain-Palin campaign used the “metaphor” excuse to defend the then-Governor:

A senior campaign aide who agreed to speak on the condition of anonymity admitted that Palin’s knowledge of Russia may be limited to the way someone from Miami might obtain a general feel for Latin America.

“It is very much being able to look off the tip of Alaska,” the aide said. “Metaphorically, I’m talking about.”

Despite how metaphorical, allegorical, or analytical people attempt to make Palin sound, the truth is that her limitless string of gaffes and missteps are simply nonsensical.

The Obama administration has been explicit about how its decision to have the Environmental Protection Agency regulate carbon dioxide as a dangerous pollutant was meant as a threat to Congress.

Gingrich, who is currently heading a coal-industry front group that has been working fervently to oppose climate change reform, has demonstrated an inconsistent stance on carbon emissions. In a 2007 climate change debate with Sen. John Kerry (D-MA), Gingrich stated that there is a need to reduce carbon “urgently”:

KERRY: What would you say to Senator Inhofe and to others in the Senate who are resisting even the science. What’s your message to them here today?

GINGRICH: My message I think is that the evidence is sufficient that we should move towards the most effective possible steps to reduce carbon loading in the atmosphere.

KERRY: And do it urgently – now?

GINGRICH: And do it urgently, yes.

Watch it:

In 2008, Gingrich called for action on climate change in an ad campaign for the Alliance for Climate Protection. Gingrich’s American Solutions for Winning the Future is airing television ads opposing climate reforms that the former Speaker once supported.

GOP's 'Faces' are RNC interns

It’s no wonder Republican consultant Mindy Finn so confidently confirmed that all the “Faces of the GOP” were actual Republicans. Would you like a chance to appear on the RNC website? No problem! Sign up here.

Lincoln “issued a statement chastising Republicans for blocking efforts at government transparency.” Just weeks ago, the Republican Party lined up to accuse Democrats of opposing greater transparency. In October, the RNC and the House Republican Conference churned out YouTube videos to attack Democrats for working “behind closed doors.” A week later, Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) attacked Democrats, saying that “instead of listening to the American people, Democrats hid behind closed doors.” Similarly, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently complained that the health care bill was “drafted behind closed doors.”

The hardly intelligible ad copy claims that under a 60-year-old British law, President Obama is a citizen of Britain and “is currently also a British protected person and/or a British citizen to this day.” The Center for American Progress’ Ian Millhiser points out that if this rule were actually applied to the presidency, every foreign nation would have the power to remove the President of the United States simply by granting the president citizenship.

The website promoted by the ad is run by Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., a plaintiff in a birther lawsuit filed against President Obama in New Jersey.

The website ostensibly outlines the “Republican Plan” for “common-sense health care reforms” — but seniors are not addressed in the plans presented. In fact, there are no occurrences of the words “senior,” “elderly,” or “older Americans” at all. An archived version of the website can be found here.

Think Progress asked Pence to address the notable omission. Seemingly unaware of the failure, he merely instructed us to “stay tuned.” Watch it:

The GOP has been engaged in a months-long campaign to scare seniors about health reform. In August, Michael Steele tried to prey on seniors’ fears by rolling out the “Seniors Health Care Bill of Rights.” Now, it appears Republicans have simply forgotten about them.

ASQC is a pro-reform coalition primarily composed of health care interest groups that are in favor of reform — including the American Medical Association and PhRMA.

In recent days, GOP leaders have focused their crosshairs on the individual mandate, a key component of an effective health care reform bill. FreedomWorks chairman Dick Armey (R-TX) attacked the mandate as a “healthcare industry boondoggle”, Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) called the mandate a “stunning assault on liberty,” and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) delayed the committee mark-up by questioning the mandate’s constitutionality.

Most notably, Sen. Chuck Grassley has suddenly become an opponent of the mandate:

HEMMER: Now as I understand it, you want stronger language preventing federal funds from going to abortion. You want stronger language to make sure illegal immigrants are not covered. If you got those two big points, would you go for it?

GRASSLEY: No, there are other points as well, but let me mention other points that you didn’t mention. And one would be the individual mandate, which for the first time would have a federal penalty against people who don’t have health insurance. I could do that through re-insurance and risk pools, to make sure we get more people insured in a voluntary way and I’m very reluctant to go along with an individual mandate.

In spite of their current rhetoric, it wasn’t long ago that Grassley and many of his Republican colleagues were strong supporters ofthe individual mandate. Progressive Media compiled a series of GOP endorsements of a mandate. Watch it:

The GOP’s newfound opposition reveals that this is not a matter of policy but yet another political strategy intended to obstruct reform at any cost.

Young became ill about two weeks ago, but didn’t seek care initially because she didn’t have health insurance and was worried about the cost, according to Brent Mowery, her friend and former roommate. […]

On Tuesday, Sept. 22, Young’s condition suddenly worsened and her roommate drove her to McCullough Hyde Memorial Hospital in Oxford, where she was flown in critical condition to University Hospital in Cincinnati.

“That’s the most tragic part about it. If she had insurance, she would have gone to the doctor,” Mowery said.

According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 30 percent of 19-24 year olds are uninsured, more than any other group. Despite the conservative argument that young people are voluntarily refusing health coverage in favor of extra spending money, the reality is that high costs on the individual market put coverage out of reach. As Suzy Khimm notes at Campus Progress, young people “are far more likely to be working part-time or lower-paying jobs for employers who don’t offer coverage”:

In its 2008 study, the Commonwealth Fund found that 66 percent of young adults aged 19 to 29 who experienced a time without coverage in the past year said they had gone without it because of the cost. [...]

Young people might have a better chance of accessing comprehensive coverage if there were a public plan, which could lower the cost of insurance, particularly for those without good employer benefits. Young people may also have a better chance at coverage if there were generous subsidies for lower-income individuals, as many take lower-paying jobs when they first enter the workforce.

Even though Boehner represents a large university, he has been an outspoken opponent of a public option that would make insurance cheaper and more accessible to recent graduates like Young. On Meet the Press last week, the Minority Leader continued to stick to the obstructionist Frank Luntz-endorsed talking points, dismissing the public option as “big government” while defending a watered-down plan.