ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Election 2014

Immigration

The Eight Most Xenophobic Stances Of Tom Tancredo, Candidate For Colorado Governor

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)

Former Rep. Tom Tancredo (R-CO)

Former Congressman Tom Tancredo (R), who finished second in the 2010 Colorado gubernatorial race as an American Constitution Party candidate, said Wednesday that he will seek the Republican nomination for governor in the 2014 election. The unsuccessful 2008 presidential hopeful said the “last straw” driving him into the race was Gov. John Hickenlooper’s (D) decision to grant a temporary reprieve to an inmate on Death Row.

Over his five terms in Congress, his single-issue anti-immigrant White House bid, and various other political campaigns, Tancredo has earned a reputation as one of America’s most extreme nativist politicians. Among his career highlights:

1. Proposed that the U.S. bomb Mecca. In 2007, Tancredo suggested that as a “deterent” to terrorism, “If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina.” Despite widespread criticism of the comments, he reiterated the view during his 2010 campaign: “I think is quite defensible. I still do, and I still would say it. It is just that I would have absolutely no reason to say it as the governor of the state of Colorado.”

2. Called for impeachment of President Obama because people illegally immigrate. In an error-riddled 2010 Washington Times op-ed, Tancredo wrote that President Obama was “a more serious threat to America than al Qaeda.” Citing a false claim by then-Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ), he added, “Mr. Obama’s most egregious and brazen betrayal of our Constitution was his statement to Sen. Jon Kyl, Arizona Republican, that the administration will not enforce security on our southern border because that would remove Republicans’ desire to negotiate a ‘comprehensive’ immigration bill. That is, to put it plainly, a decision that by any reasonable standard constitutes an impeachable offense against the Constitution.”

3. Smeared the first Hispanic-American Supreme Court Justice as a “racist.” When President Obama nominated Justice Sonia Sotomayor, Tancredo went ballistic. Calling her “Sonia Mayor,” he said, “I do not know if he has a hatred for white people. I can say that [Obama's] statements and his appointment of someone I do believe to be a racist, ‘Sonia Mayer,’ for her racial views by the way — that is an indication.” He added “I’m telling you she appears to be a racist. She said things that are racist in any other context. That’s exactly how we would portray it and there’s no one who would get on the Supreme Court saying a thing like that except for a Hispanic woman and you’re going to say it doesn’t matter!” ”Why is it, in order to speak to [Hispanics], you have to speak to them in Spanish, or you have to be translated to them in Spanish?” Tancredo said on CNN. “If you are going to vote in this country, you should be a citizen. To be a citzen in this country you should know English.”

4. Does not believe candidates in the USA should speak Spanish. As he boycotted a December 2007 presidential debate on Univision, Tancredo wrote in a press release, “It is the law that to become a naturalized citizen of this country you must have knowledge and understanding of English, including a basic ability to read, write, and speak the language… So what may I ask are our presidential candidates doing participating in a Spanish speaking debate? Pandering comes to mind.” Embracing assimilation, he added, “Bilingualism is a great asset for any individual but it has perilous consequences for a nation. As such, a Spanish debate has no place in a presidential campaign.” On CNN, he elaborated, “If you are going to vote in this country, you should be a citizen. To be a citizen in this country you should know English.”

5. Demonized illegal immigrants as violent gangsters and “jihadist” terrorists. In campaign ad for his 2008 presidential run, he showed bloody images of terrorist attacks, warning that open borders means “[Islamic] jihadists who froth with hate” will launch terrorist attacks like those in London, Spain, and Russia and “vicious central American gangs” who are “pushing drugs, raping kids, [and] destroying lives.” In 2004, he warned that some undocumented immigrants are “coming here to kill you and to kill me and our families.”

6. Bashed Miami for its diversity. In a 2009 interview, Tancredo said Miami does not feel like America because so many people there speak Spanish: ‘”Look at what has happened to Miami. It has become a Third World country. You just pick it up and take it and move it someplace. You would never know you’re in the United States of America. You would certainly say you’re in a Third World country.” When criticized for the remarks, he shot back, “I knew speaking your mind could be dangerous in Havana. I guess it’s equally dangerous to do so in Miami. Apparently, there isn’t much of a difference between the two anymore.”

7. Even opposed legal immigration. In 2003, Tancredo proposed the “Mass Immigration Reduction Act.” The bill would have put a five-year moratorium on all legal immigration to the United States.

8. Wants to reinstate literacy tests for voting. Tancredo proposed a “civics literacy test” to prevent non-English speakers from voting. Lamenting that President Obama won with the support of what he called “people who could not even spell the word ‘vote,’ or say it in English,” he blamed the election of a “committed socialist ideologue” on the fact that “we do not have a civics literacy test before people can vote in this country.”

As the national Republican party seeks to shed its reputation as anti-immigrant, Tancredo’s candidacy presents an interesting challenge. Former House Republican Leader Dick Armey (R-TX), an influential figure in the Tea Party movement, once called his former colleague a “cheerleader of jerkiness in the immigration debate.”

Election

Meet Mead Treadwell: The Male Sarah Palin

Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell (R-AK)

Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell (R-AK)

Alaska’s Lt. Gov. Mead Treadwell is currently “exploring” a campaign for the 2014 Republican nomination against Sen. Mark Begich (D). With a history of working in the oil industry and a record of support for drilling at will, he would likely be one of the most extreme and environmentally irresponsible members of the Senate.

His far right conspiracy theories are eerily reminiscent of another Alaskan politician he has wholeheartedly embraced — former Gov. Sarah Palin (R).

Here are eight things voters should know about Treadwell:

1. He loves drilling. A founding member of the Yukon Pacific Corporation, the company that began the Alaska gas pipeline project. His 2010 campaign for Lt. Governor focused on a platform of “fighting the feds” to get more oil into Alaska’s pipeline, building a gas pipeline, and expanding exports. He complained that the federal government denies Alaskan drillers legal access to oil and gas sources purely because of “visual impact.”

2. He denies climate-change science and dismisses its dangers. In seeking the endorsement of the Conservative Patriots Group (an Alaskan Tea Party organization), Treadwell said he is unconvinced CO2 emissions drive climate change: “I challenge the argument that man made CO2 emissions are causing significant global warming and I will oppose any costly new regulations that would increase unemployment, raise consumer prices and weaken the nation’s global competitiveness.” Treadwell cheers the “accessible arctic” that would come from melting ice and suggests that declining cultural traditions are a bigger concern — telling a Republican group: “If you think climate’s changing in Alaska, glaciers are receding, sea ice is opening up, and all of that, one of the things that to me is very dramatic is that there are many, many Alaskan native youth today who do not speak the language of their grandparents.”

3. He opposed Obamacare and student loan reform, because he believed they created “death panels.” Echoing Palin’s widely-debunked claim, Treadwell widely mischaracterized President Obama’s health care reform law and student loan reform. At a 2010 debate, he argued: “Government’s job is to protect our liberties and to protect our property, not to take our rights away. It’s also to our job to come in and tell you, if you’re a doctor ‘you’re now a utility and whatever you charge and decide to do is subject to government regulation.’ Some other things in that bill [were] entirely nuts. They had a plan to try to reduce the cost of student loans by getting the banks out of the way, as middlemen. Instead they said, ‘no, let’s keep the same price, throw the banks out of business, and use that as a tax to help pay for this thing.” Noting his late wife’s struggle with brain cancer, he said “thank goodness there were not death panels… Sarah Palin was right on blowing the whistle on that issue.”

4. He opposes not just marijuana legalization but even medical marijuana. Though he claims to be an advocate of privacy and a “liberty agenda,” Treadwell takes a hard line on even medical marijuana. At a 2010 debate — two years before Colorado voted to legalize and regulate marijuana — Treadwell criticized it and other states that allowed those with a medical need to access the drug. “I believe we should have solid drug laws,” he argued, “I don’t like the situation in CO and CA right now that has basically meant you can get pot in a store as easily as you can get a pizza. I don’t think that makes sense.”

5. He opposes all new revenue, but pushed for more government spending. Treadwell signed Grover Norquist’s iron-clad oath against ever increasing taxes of any kind. In a 2010 debate, he pushed other candidates to do the same. While he opposing ever seeking new revenue, he boasted of his efforts to “dramatically” increase Alaska’s infrastructure through “joint federal and state investment in sanitation, health, and energy facilities.” Last month, he actually criticized the draconian Paul Ryan House Republican budget plan for not balancing the budget quickly enough.

6. He opposed an bill that made ballot initiative funding more transparent, citing his support for parental notification legislation. In 2010, Alaska’s Republican-controlled legislature enacted HB 36, the Open and Transparent Initiative Act, to make it easier for votes to know who is behind ballot initiatives and who is paying for them. As a 2010 Lt. Governor candidate forum, Treadwell explained that he would have opposed the law. His reasoning was that “the constitution did set up a process that hasn’t really happened with the legislation. You go around, get lots and lots of signatures, they made it harder to get the signatures, and the legislature is supposed to respond.” He then complained, “I’m also very sad and upset that we have to go to a ballot initiative to keep the rights of parents to know what their daughter is doing,” as the legislature did not enact a law preventing pregnant minors from obtaining an abortion without parental notification.

7. He loved the late Sen. Ted Stevens because he was “anti-Communist” and brought home pork. In a memorial post for the National Review, Treadwell wrote that the late Senator was a hero: “Stevens was labeled a big spender; conservative circles hung a “bridge to nowhere” around his neck in the year or so before he left. But he was a staunch anti-Communist when it counted, and he supported Ronald Reagan’s efforts to bring down the Soviet Union. He constantly pushed back against environmental extremism, but was a realist about supporting science and technology to address environmental and health problems. … Even conservatives fail us sometimes: Stevens’s natural allies in pushing to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling, for instance, were often the same folks who broke with him when he sought to replace a national icebreaker fleet that can hardly handle the reduced conditions of the Arctic. Thus, in his latter days, just as he’d accrued the seniority to guide appropriations, Stevens’s practice of ‘earmarks’ became a target. Since Congress wouldn’t let us drill for new oil, we were told, we had decided to ‘drill’ in the federal budget.” Treadwell, who once served as a page for Stevens, continues the late Senator’s push for federal money for icrebreaking ships.

8. Like Palin, he has connections to the controversial Alaskan Independence Party. In 1990, Alaskans elected Gov. Walter Hickel and Lt. Gov. Jack Coghill on the Alaskan Independence Party (AIP) ticket. Hickel, who had served a term as a Republican in the 1960s, was Treadwell’s “longtime mentor and close friend.” Coghill, who went on to chair the AIP, headlined Treadwell’s 2010 Fairbanks campaign kickoff event. The platform of the AIP under Coghill called for “privatization of government services,” “complete abolition of the concept of sovereign or governmental immunity, so as to restore accountability for public servants,” and “the rights of parents to privately or home school their children and to provide them individually the right to access to a proportional share of all money provided for educational purposes as an unrestricted grant for such purposes.” Historically, the AIP has advocated for a referendum on whether the state should secede from the United States.

Watch Treadwell repeat Sarah Palin’s “death panels” myth:

Treadwell received the Conservative Patriots Group’s Tea Party endorsement in 2010, but lost it when the group discovered he had contributed to Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s (R) re-election campaign.

Election

Meet Senate Candidate Phil Gingrey, Georgia’s Todd Akin

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA)

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA) has decided to run for the open seat of retiring Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R), the Washington Post reported Friday. Over a decade-plus in Washington, the self-described “pro-life OB-GYN” has become famous for amassing on of the most extreme voting records in Congress and a long series of gaffes.

Over six terms in Congress, Gingrey has:

1. Defended former Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO)’s infamous rape comments. Though Akin’s 2012 suggestion that victims of “legitimate rape” were unlikely to become pregnant drew virtually universal criticism, Gingrey boldly took the opposite position. Contradicting medical science, Gingrey said last month that Akin was “partially right,” as “all that adrenaline can cause you not to ovulate.”

2. Opposed President Obama’s stimulus — then claimed credit for it. Gingrey voted against the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, calling it a “non-stimulus stimulus plan” for spending “money that we do not have.” Despite his objection to the “trillion dollar debt” bill, he boasted of obtaining a $625,000 stimulus grant for Cedartown, Georgia’s Streetscape project. Gingrey’s hypocrisy was on full display when he personally presented a giant over-sized check to city officials for the “shovel-ready” project.

3. Denounced minority outreach — by Democratic campaigns. Though political candidates of both parties have long organized “Minority Group for Candidate” outreach efforts, Gingrey denounced the practice as “worse than sad.” Asked on a right-wing radio show about the African-Americans for Obama, he complained: “To use that and to go out and try to create divisiveness or one race against the other, it’s not just that, it’s one gender against the other, male versus female. I’m sick of all that and I think the American people are too.” He and his office said nothing when Mitt Romney launched Latino (Juntos Con Romney), women (Women for Mitt), and even African Americans (Black Leadership Council). More amazingly, his own 2008 campaign had a “Women for Gingrey” outreach group.

4. Pushed for wasteful military spending the Department of Defense doesn’t even want. Despite claims that he is “committed to finding ways to reduce” government programs that are “bloated” and “riddled with waste,” Gingrey demanded additional funding for the Marietta, Georgia-built F-22 stealth fighter. His claims that his effort wasn’t “just for the sake of home-cooking, but also for the sake of the country,” were contradicted by then-Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and bipartisan Congressional leaders, who agreed there was “no military requirement” for more F-22s. Gingrey’s financial disclosures indicated that he owned stock in the company that makes the planes.

5. Compared Democratic clean energy legislation to the North Korean and Iranian governments. When the House Democratic leadership proposed a rule for a clean energy bill that did not allow minority amendments, Gingrey ranted: “Americans are watching as from Iran to North Korea, the forces of darkness are attempting to silence the forces of democracy and freedom. The irony is on this day, the Democratic process and the nation’s economic freedom are under threat not by some rogue state, but in this very chamber in which we stand.”

6. Dismissed pre-existing medical conditions as nothing more than hang-nails. When a 2011 report by the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that up to 129 million Americans have some sort of pre-existing medical condition that could subject them to discrimination by insurance companies, Gingrey was incredulous. Though the report included people with a history of heart disease, cancer, asthma, high blood pressure, arthritis, and the like, he opined: “One hundred and twenty nine million people with pre-existing conditions! They would all have to have hang nails and fever blisters to have pre-existing conditions and if you believe those statistics, I’ve got a beach to sell you in Pennsylvania.”

7. After criticizing sexist radio host Rush Limbaugh for irresponsibly ginning up controversy, quickly begged for forgiveness.. In 2009, Gingrey accurately noted that Limbaugh and other conservative media personalities can “stand back and throw bricks” instead of offering “real leadership.” A day later, Gingrey went on Limbaugh’s show to offer a “very sincere” apology for his criticisms. “I clearly ended up putting my foot in my mouth on some of those comments,” he explained, “I regret those stupid comments.”

8. Blamed wounded Walter Reed veterans for the deplorable conditions at the hospital. After a 2007 Washington Post investigation revealed that many soldiers were recuperating from war wounds in moldy rooms infested by rats and cockroaches, Gingrey laregly dismissed the problem. He said at a House Armed Service Committee hearing: “It’s not a five-star hotel, make no mistake about it, but it’s not a flophouse. It’s not a dump. It’s not a dive. It needs some work, no question about it. I’m not making excuses, of course. And when I read the Washington Post report I was glad to know that those cockroaches were belly up. It suggested to me that at least someone was spraying for them, Mr. Chairman. And, of course, if you leave food around in a motel room or a dorm room at a college, you’re going to get some mice show up at some point in time.”

9. Demagogued Obamacare. Gingrey didn’t just oppose the Affordable Care Act — attacked it and spread misinformation about it. Though it was clearly constitutional, Gingrey called the Supreme Court’s ruling upholding it’s constitutionality “one of the worst decisions in Supreme Court history.” He called the law’s long-term care provisions “Dracula,” in need of “a stake through its heart.” Worst, he spread the false claim that the Independent Payment Advisory Board created by the health care law would drive a “wedge between physicians and their patients,” would be able to “operate in secret,” and could “accept unlimited donations of services or even property from lobbyists,” including “cash, meals, cars, vacations and even homes.”

10. Flipped on increasing tax revenues in 67 seconds. When asked by ThinkProgress in December about a possible deal that let tax cuts for the wealthy expire, Gingrey was initially open to the idea: “I hate to make a commitment on anything.” He didn’t want to rule anything out before consulting with constituents in his district. But when reminded that he had signed Grover Norquist’s ironclad oath never raise taxes, Gingrey abruptly shifted his position and agreed to abide by it, confessing: “I don’t take that pledge lightly, so I won’t say that I don’t feel bound by it.” In 2010, he liked his commitment to low taxes for the rich to “God’s covenant with Moses.”

In 2010, Gingrey acknowledged that he did not think the Republican Party would “ever be as big a tent organization as the Democratic Party.” Now, he will have to hope the Georgia GOP primary will be a small enough tent to embrace his right-of-right views and record.

Politics

How The Civil War Between Karl Rove And The Tea Party Could Cost Republicans The Senate


Think of the brewing Republican civil war between establishment-types like Karl Rove and right-wing Tea Party activists as a bullfight.

Initially, in 2009-10, Rove and establishment Republicans were scared of this new, large group that had entered the ring. It was unruly, unrefined. As time progressed, though, Rove came to see its strength and the way it brought in crowds. It moved quickly. It attacked relentlessly. However, the more Rove waved his red flag in an attempt to win contests for his side, the more his sparring partner became enraged. By 2013, Rove had made his decision: this group was too unpredictable to be dealt with. It was time to end things before he and his party got gored.

That’s why Rove announced this week, to much Tea Party consternation, that he was forming a new group—the Conservative Victory Project—to try to undermine far-right candidates who might appeal to Republican primary voters, but would get trounced in a general election. In at least seven races over the past two election cycles, Tea Party candidates prevailed over establishment types in Republican Senate primaries: Todd Akin in Missouri (2012), Sharron Angle in Nevada (2010), Ken Buck in Colorado (2010), Linda McMahon in Connecticut (2010 and 2012), Richard Mourdock in Indiana (2012), and Christine O’Donnell in Delaware (2010).

Unfortunately for establishment Republicans, winning a bullfight is easier said than done.

Like a cornered animal, many Tea Partiers are wildly lashing back. On Thursday, FreedomWorks emailed their list accusing Rove of “working in tandem” with President Obama “to silence grassroots conservatives in the freedom movement.” Rep. Steve King (R-IA) also emailed supporters to declare that “Nobody can bully me out of running for the U.S. Senate, not even Karl Rove and his hefty war chest.” Citizens United president David Bossie simply offered, “The civil war has begun.”

To a certain extent, this conservative reaction is expected. When Tea Party groups think of contested Republican primaries, they don’t think of Akin and Mourdock. They think of some of the right wing’s most beloved figures, like Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rand Paul (R-KY) and Mike Lee (R-UT), who defeated establishment Republicans and won the general election. On the other hand, those Akin and Mourdock group of losses are the difference between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

That dynamic could play out again in 2014, in what could otherwise be a banner year for Senate Republicans. Of the 33 seats up for election, 20 are currently held by Democrats and 13 by the GOP. Republicans likely need to pick up six seats to win a majority, but their chances in at least five races—Alaska, Georgia, Iowa, South Carolina, and West Virginia—are already being threatened by establishment-Tea Party fighting.

Tea Party groups aren’t exactly lining up, baby duck-style, behind Rove as he tries to shepherd electable candidates through these races. As Politico writes, some are even threatening to back third-party candidates if Rove’s picks prevail in the primary:

If tea-party-backed candidates lose GOP primaries after they’re attacked by Rove’s group, the Tea Party Express might support them as third-party candidates, suggested the group’s founder Sal Russo. His group has spent $17 million in the past two election cycles and is credited with boosting a pair of 2010 Senate candidates to GOP primary victories only to see them lose general elections that Rove and his allies deemed winnable.

“We discourage our people from supporting third-party candidates by saying ‘that’s a big mistake. We shouldn’t do that’,” he said. “But if the position [Rove’s allies] take is rule or ruin — well, two can play that game. And if we get pushed, we’re not going to be able to keep the lid on that.”

If the conservative vote gets split between Republicans and third-party candidates, Democrats might not just hold the Senate, they could increase their majority.

Economy

7 Facts About Mitt Romney’s Economic Plan He Doesn’t Want You To Know

Mitt Romney will officially accept the Republican nomination for president at the party’s national convention tonight, and in his speech, he will undoubtedly talk about the economy and his supposed plan to spur growth and speed up the recovery. Romney’s plan is notorious for its lack of specifics, but through the few details he has provided, ThinkProgress compiled seven facts about his economic policies that he likely won’t mention in his speech tonight:

1) It gives the rich and corporations a massive tax cut. Romney’s proposal to give every American a tax cut is a giveaway to the rich that is four-times larger than the Bush tax cuts. Half the benefit would go to the richest five percent of Americans, and each member of the top 0.1 percent would get at least a $264,000 cut. Romney says he will balance the cuts with the closure of tax loopholes, but he can’t name which ones he’d close and even if he did, the plan wouldn’t generate enough revenue to offset revenue lost to tax reductions. His corporate tax plan, meanwhile, results in more than $1 trillion in tax cuts.

2) It raises taxes on the middle class. A Tax Policy Center analysis found that Romney’s plan would raise taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 if he were to keep his promise to maintain the current level of revenue. A later analysis that added in the cost of Romney’s corporate tax cuts nearly doubled the size of the tax hike on the middle class to as much as $4,000 for a family of four.

3) It won’t balance the budget. Romney’s tax plan would add more than $10 trillion to the national debt if he doesn’t balance it with tax increases on the middle class or with spending cuts that are too impossibly large to fathom. Even if Romney closed every loophole for the rich, as he has promised to do, he would need 6.5 percent economic growth for five years to avoid adding to the debt. The economy hasn’t grown that fast over a five-year period since the early 1960s.

4) It won’t lead to economic growth. The last Republican president promised that supply-side policies like tax cuts for the rich would boost the economy and lead to job growth. They didn’t. Romney is trying the same policies (Bush, “just updated,” as one RNC official put it), despite overwhelming evidence that they don’t work.

5) It will make it easier for corporations to dodge taxes and outsource jobs: Romney’s plan to switch to a territorial tax system will make it easier for corporations to stash their profits in off-shore tax havens. It would also make it easier for corporations to outsource American jobs. In all, economists estimate the plan could cost America 800,000 jobs.

6) It would put bankers between you and your student loans. Obamacare included a provision in the law that removed bankers from the federal student loan process, eliminating a middle-man and allowing borrowers to deal directly with the government. That reduced costs, saving students $100 billion. By repealing the healthcare law, Romney would put those bankers back in between students and government lenders, handing big banks billions of dollars in the process.

7) It won’t address the housing crisis. Romney’s economic plan had 59 points, but it failed to detail a plan to help America’s struggling homeowners. Instead, Romney says we should let the housing market “run its course and hit the bottom,” and that America shouldn’t “try to stop the foreclosure process.” His plan wouldn’t help the millions of Americans who are facing foreclosure or are underwater on their mortgages. It also ignores simple steps the government could take to help housing, and it has been criticized by Republicans in high-foreclosure states. Romney has since tried to reverse course, but he still offers no specifics.

Economy

In 2005, Romney Supported Waivers He Now Claims Will ‘Undermine’ Welfare Reform

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was quick to denounce the welfare reform waiver plan announced by the Obama administration last week. But in 2005, he was one of a half-dozen prominent Republican governors who supported such waivers.

The administration’s plan would provide states with more flexibility to manage their state welfare programs under Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, the welfare reform package instituted in 1996. Republicans accused the administration of attempting to “gut” welfare reform with the waivers, and Romney agreed. “President Obama now wants to strip the established work requirements from welfare. The success of bipartisan welfare reform, passed under President Clinton, has rested on the obligation of work. The President’s action is completely misdirected. Work is a dignified endeavor, and the linkage of work and welfare is essential to prevent welfare from becoming a way of life,” Romney said.

But in 2005, Romney’s signature appeared on a letter from the Republican Governor’s Association to congressional leadership. The letter states explicit support for welfare waivers:

The Senate bill provides states with with the flexibility to manage their TANF programs and effectively serve their low-income populations. Increased waiver authority, allowable work activities, availability of partial work credit and the ability to coordinate state programs are all important aspects of moving recipients from welfare to work.

As ThinkProgress has noted, other Republican administrations in Utah and Nevada still support the waiver program, which the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities says will actually increase welfare’s ability to transition welfare recipients into employment programs.

Yglesias

How Long? Not Long

Bruce Bartlett has a column lamenting the poor outlook for the Republican Party that concludes with this:

Eventually, Republicans will tire of being out of power just as Democrats did, and they will do what it takes to win. But I fear that Republicans will have to at least lose in 2010 and again in 2012 before they start to come to their senses. Perhaps by 2014, some leader with maturity, resources, vision and discipline will find a way of leading the GOP out of the wilderness. But I see no one even in a position to start that process today.

I think that’s probably right. Then again, I’m not sure that outlook is so bleak. After kinda sorta losing in 2000, some thought the lesson was that Democrats were way too liberal. Folks like Will Marshall and Mark Penn warned that they had to turn much more conservative in order to win elections. Their warnings went only semi-heeded and, consequently, Democrats lost ground in 2002 and lost more ground in 2004. But guess what? By 2008 they had strong congressional majorities and a popular new president ready to support universal health care, tough action to limit greenhouse gas pollution, a public more supportive than ever of equal rights for gays and lesbians, etc., etc.

Looking at the Republican side, the electoral map is just very bad for them in the 2010 Senate race no matter what they do. And the odds are that we’ll be in an economic recovery by 2012 that the voters will credit Obama for and he’ll get re-elected. But by 2014, the Senate electoral map will be bad for Democrats. Who wins in 2016? It has more to do with what’s happening in 2016 than with what the candidate says.

The problem with the conservative positions pushed by Bush and DeLay and Lott & McConnell and now McConnell & Lott and Boehner and Cantor and Pence isn’t that they’re “unelectable” positions it’s that they don’t work as a governing agenda. That’s bad for the country and also means that if they do get back into office, they’ll run things back into the ditch and probably get voted out again.

Switch to Mobile
ThinkProgress Signup Overlay Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress Skip and Continue to ThinkProgress

Sign Up