ThinkProgress Logo

Stories tagged with “Roy Blunt

Security

GOP Aides Mock House Republicans’ ‘Crazy’ Benghazi Witch-Hunt

Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA) is leading the GOP's Benghazi witch-hunt (Credit: Reuters)

GOP aides are criticizing the House Republicans’ partisan witch-hunt over the Obama administration’s handling of the attacks on a U.S. diplomatic outpost in Benghazi, Libya last year, arguing that the Party should focus more on substantive issues, such as lessons learned and how to recalibrate diplomatic security.

Roll Call reports that Republican aides are saying staffers are getting bogged down chasing bogus accusations.

“We have got to get past that and figure out what are we going to do going forward,” a GOP aide told Roll Call. “Some of the accusations, I mean you wouldn’t believe some of this stuff. It’s just — I mean, you’ve got to be on Mars to come up with some of this stuff.” Another aide expressed frustration at accusations that military assets weren’t properly deployed during the night of the attacks and that a team from Tripoli could have been flown in to fight off the attackers:

There are some real issues there and then there is just some crazy stuff,” the senior House GOP aide said. “The crazy stuff is, you know, the airman in Ramstein [Air Base, Germany,] that knew that the Predator [drone] was armed. There are no armed Predators in the region there. The [status of forces agreement] does not allow us to fly them armed, and everybody knows it.” [...]

GOP aides described another criticism aired at a recent House Oversight Committee hearing that there were four security officers at the U.S. Embassy in Tripoli who were ordered to remain in the capital for several hours after the first reports of an attack, rather than being scrambled to assist the consulate in Benghazi.

“The stand-down order was for four guys,” the GOP aide said. “When you step back and say how were the people killed at the annex, they were killed by an indirect fire mortar round. Four more M-4s [rifles] inside the annex doesn’t change that outcome. In fact, they might have just created more casualties. We have got to get down to what really happened on the DoD side and for us the DoD side was not properly postured, why?”

It appears that some Republicans are also beginning to see that the GOP’s Benghazi affair isn’t paying dividends. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell backed away from some Republicans’ baseless claims of an Obama White House cover-up. And Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) in an interview on Fox News on Monday warned his colleagues about taking the issue too far:

Read more

Politics

Senator Who Voted To Kill Gun Debate Demands Consideration Of His Amendment

A Republican senator who voted against beginning debate on a comprehensive measure to reduce gun violence on Thursday, demanded on Monday that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) allow a vote on his amendment to improve mental health services.

Appearing on Fox News, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said he would not support a bipartisan measure to expand background checks to gun shows and online purchases, but urged the Senate to consider his mental health amendment. “I’d rather see us focus our efforts on mental health and areas where we actually might have the potential to prevent the things that just happened,” Blunt said:

BLUNT: I think we should take this moment to try to solve the problem, that’s why Senator [Debbie] Stabenow [D-MI] and I want want to offer our bill. Other senators are involved with me on mental health, first aid and how you make it more certain that people who have had a mental health problem that led to criminal behavior get help. We have had a number of veterans come in last week and support the mental health bill that we are for. We haven’t heard from Senator Reid yet about whether those things are going to even be offered as amendments to this bill that would actually have had impact, potentially, on what happened at sandy hook and other places.

The amendment Stabenow and Blunt are proposing would “designate certain community mental health centers as Federally Qualified Community Behavioral Health Centers — opening the door to more Medicaid reimbursement.” The mesure is widely supported by veterans groups and the mental health community but if Blunt’s vote prevailed it’s unlikely that it — or any other measure to reduce gun violence — would have been considered by the Senate.

Blunt had initially pledged to support the Senate’s motion to proceed on gun safety, but later changed his mind.

Economy

How Two Republican Senators Are Using A Bait-And-Switch To Scuttle Democrats’ Revenue Goals

Sens. Roy Blunt (center) and John Thune (left)

Sens. Roy Blunt (R-MO) and John Thune (R-SD) this afternoon offered an amendment to the Senate Democratic budget that they claim will protect the charitable tax deduction from elimination or restriction under the tax reform sought by Democrats. In reality, though, the amendment is a simple bait-and-switch attempt to reduce the budget’s overall revenue levels and would have no bearing on the charitable deduction.

The Democratic budget, authored by Washington Sen. Patty Murray (D), includes $975 billion in new revenues over the next decade to be gained through the closure of tax loopholes and elimination of tax expenditures that benefit the wealthy and corporations. The charitable deduction is among the most popular expenditures on both sides of the partisan spectrum, making it the perfect candidate for Blunt and Thune’s ploy.

The purpose statement at the top of the amendment reads:

To protect charitable organizations from being used as a source of revenue to pay for more spending by protecting the deduction for charitable giving from being capped, limited, or eliminated to pay for new spending as part of any tax increase.

Aside from that totally meaningless sentence that has no legislative significance, the amendment does not mention the charitable deduction. Instead, it simply cuts revenue levels for each year between 2014 and 2023. In total, the amendment would cut the amount the revenue originally sought by the Democratic budget roughly in half. It would have no impact on the charitable deduction, one way or the other, and would not in any way protect the tax break for charitable giving. The amendment, despite what Thune and Blunt would have people believe, is nothing more than a massive reduction in the budget’s revenue goals masked as protection of a popular tax deduction.

Justice

The 10 NRA-Funded Senators Hoping To Block Gun Regulations

The National Rifle Association’s NRA Political Victory Fund PAC has distributed more than $1 million in career donations to current members of the United States Senate. And, like their House counterparts, the Senators who have received the most are also among the most vocal opponents of any new gun violence prevention legislation advanced in the aftermath of the school shooting at Newton, Connecticut.

A ThinkProgress analysis of data from Political MoneyLine reveals that the top 10 Senate beneficiaries of NRA money are all Republicans. Each has already indicated his opposition to President Obama’s gun violence proposals and each has received an “A” or “A+” rating from the NRA. They are:

SEN. JIM INHOFE (R-OK) — AT LEAST $64,900


Inhofe said last month, “I will continue to strongly oppose any effort to undermine the Second Amendment and an individual citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. … The text of the Constitution clearly confers upon an individual the right to bear arms – and not just for the purposes of hunting as many liberals will claim. Our Founders believed that the people’s right to own guns was an important check on the powers of the government and ‘necessary to the security of a free State.’ I couldn’t agree more and I stand firm in my support of this right.”

SEN. ROY BLUNT (R-MO) — AT LEAST $60,550


Blunt said last month, “Unfortunately, the president’s proposals today fundamentally fail to address ways that we can prevent tragic events like Sandy Hook, and instead, he’s attempting to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.” Last week, he expressed doubt that the Senate would even expand background checks.

SEN. SAXBY CHAMBLISS (R-GA) — AT LEAST $56,950


Chambliss said last month, “While I am certain that the president’s proposal is well-intentioned, it is Congress’ responsibility to make sure that Americans’ constitutional rights are protected.”

SEN. JOHN THUNE (R-SD) — AT LEAST $48,605


Thune said last month, “There is a lot of emotion driving this debate. We need to prevent this in the future, and make the schools and our kids safer. And frankly, I don’t think it has to do with restrictions on the Second Amendment.”

SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-SC) — AT LEAST $46,600


Graham said last month, “One bullet in the hands of a homicidal maniac is one too many. But in the case of a young mother defending her children against a home invader — a real-life event which recently occurred near Atlanta — six bullets may not be enough. Criminals aren’t going to follow legislation limiting magazine capacity. However, a limit could put law-abiding citizens at a distinct disadvantage when confronting a criminal. As for reinstating the assault weapons ban, it has already been tried and failed.”

SEN. RICHARD SHELBY (R-AL) — AT LEAST $43,755


Shelby said on his Congressional website, “We all mourn the victims of shocking tragedies that have resulted from senseless acts of violence perpetrated by seriously disturbed individuals. However, such tragedies should not be viewed as an indictment of America’s precious Second Amendment rights. Thus, we should not react in a manner that would unnecessarily and improperly infringe upon the rights of tens of millions of law-abiding American gun owners. Unfortunately, it seems that some zealous gun rights opponents are seeking to leverage tragedies to further their long-held agenda of unduly restricting Americans’ Second Amendment rights.”

SEN. MIKE CRAPO (R-ID) — AT LEAST $43,700


Crapo said last month, “The President’s proposal on gun control is very disappointing. Any discussion about restricting the Constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans deserves, at minimum, a full and public debate in Congress. Burdening law-abiding citizens of this country with additional gun restrictions is not the answer to safeguarding the public from further attacks.”

SEN. ORRIN HATCH (R-UT) — AT LEAST $41,750


Hatch said last month that even passage of universal background checks would be “the way reductions in liberty occur.” He added, “When you start saying people all have to sign up for something, and they have a database where they know exactly who’s who, and where government can persecute people because of the database, that alarms a lot of people in our country, and it flies in the face of liberty,” noting that gun rights are “an express provision in the Constitution, unlike the penumbras and other conjured-up provisions that aren’t there that the court has come up with over the years. This is express, and many people are very, very concerned about any infringement on it, and I’m one of them.”

SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R-IA) — AT LEAST $41,200


Grassley said last month, “The Second Amendment is more than just words on paper. It’s a fundamental right that ensures citizens the ability to protect themselves against the government. Unfortunately, the President seems to think that the Second Amendment can be tossed aside. Using executive action to attempt to poke holes in the Second Amendment is a power grab along the same pattern we’ve seen of contempt for the elected representatives of the American people. Some of these directives clearly run afoul of limitations Congress has placed on federal spending bringing the President’s actions in direct conflict with federal law. More importantly, it’s hard to see how any of these executive actions would have prevented the tragedies that precipitated this effort.”

SEN. ROGER WICKER (R-MS) — AT LEAST $36,750


Wicker said last month, “The President’s proposals would violate the Constitution and have been proven not to be effective in preventing gun violence, I will be part of a bipartisan coalition opposing this legislation and looking for real solutions such as school safety guards, mental health care, and addressing the culture of violence in the media. The Second Amendment rights of Americans must be preserved.”

The 10 have received more than $480,000 combined in career NRA PAC money.

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights subcommittee will hold a hearing Tuesday to examine proposals to reduce gun violence. The four Republicans on the nine-person panel are Graham, Hatch, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). Cruz (at least $9900) has blasted the President for “trying to exploit the tragic murder of children as an excuse to push his own extreme anti-gun agenda,” and Cornyn ($17,850) has said we must enforce existing gun laws before we consider any new ones.

Politics

NRA-Backed Republican: Senate Won’t ‘Produce Any Legislation’ Expanding Background Checks For Gun Purchases

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) — a top recipient of campaign donations from the National Rifle Association — poured cold water over ongoing bipartisan negotiations in the Senate to expand background checks for all gun purchases, insisting that lawmakers are unlikely to act on the proposal.

The senators involved in crafting the compromise — Tom Coburn (R-OK), Mark Kirk (R-IL), Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Chuck Schumer (D-NY) — hope to “effectively require background checks on private gun purchases made with non-licensed gun dealers” while addressing “privacy concerns of gun owners” and exempting family transfers from the checks.

But during an interview with KMBZ News 98.1 FM on Friday morning, Blunt rejected the growing consensus — among the public and gun owners and dealers — for sensible background checks. Despite the near universal support for requiring buyers to undergo a review before acquiring a firearm, Blunt predicted the Senate would not “produce legislation” to address the matter:

Q: We’re hearing something about a bipartisan group of senators trying to reach a compromise on this as far as expanding the requirement of background checks at gun shows. What are you hearing about that?

BLUNT: I’m not sure the Senate can produce any legislation that changes this. I’m willing to look at it — I have in the past voted for ways to expand background checks at gun shows. I’m not for a law that would mean that two neighbors couldn’t be able to trade shot guns….most of my energy is going on the mental health side.

Since the passage of the Brady Act, gun purchasers buying firearms from federally licensed dealers are subject to background checks and as a result, more than 2 million applicants have been prohibited from purchasing guns. Unfortunately, 40 percent of firearm sales occur at “gun shows, flea markets, private sales, through newspaper advertisements, and online purchasers” without any background reviews. Blunt, who is the second highest recipient of NRA donations in the Senate (his career receipts total more than $51,000), is hoping to keep it that way.

Security

GOP Senator: Don’t Filibuster Hagel Confirmation

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)

A Republican senator who serves on the Armed Services Committee said on Friday he does not believe Chuck Hagel should need 60 votes to be confirmed as the next Secretary of Defense.

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said on MSNBC this morning that he does not intend for vote for Hagel; but when asked if he would support a filibuster of the former Republican senator, Blunt said he would not and that Hagel should receive an up-or-down vote:

BLUNT: I will be voting no in the committee and then assuming there’s a vote on the floor I’ll be voting no on the floor.

CHUCK TODD: Well there’s two ways — and there’s a third way to vote no on him which of course is the issue of a filibuster. Would you support a filibuster of Chuck Hagel’s nomination?

BLUNT: I doubt it. I doubt it. I think for somebody who’s going to be there the length of time the president serves as opposed to a Supreme Court judge, that a majority in the Senate should be able to confirm. I wouldn’t intend to be a part of that majority but certainly my strong inclination would be that this is a vote that should be done by a majority rather than a 60 vote standard and this person’s going to leave the day the president leaves that makes a difference.

Watch the clip:

While only a handful of Republicans have said they will vote against Hagel, it does appear that he will get some GOP support. And with the Democrats in the majority, it seems increasingly likely that Hagel will get confirmed.

Economy

GOP Senator Says He May Support Increasing Tax Rates In Fiscal Cliff Deal

A prominent Republican senator told a local radio station on Friday that he would consider raising marginal tax rates as part of a balanced package of entitlement reforms, going further than most of his colleagues in signaling an openness to increasing taxes on income over $250,000.

During an appearance on KTRS The Big 550 , Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) said he would consider allowing President Bush’s tax cuts to expire on higher-end income if Democrats support changes to entitlement programs like Medicare:

Q: Are you open to voting for some type of compromise that would increase marginal tax rates?

BLUNT: I think I’m unlikely to do that. I think if we had real long-term entitlement reform that would offset the negative economic impact of raising tax rates,that’s something to talk about and that’s the deal.

Listen:

President Obama offered $360 billion in Medicare and Medicaid savings in his FY 2013 budget, including reforming the way government health care programs pay for services to ensure that they reward quality and efficiency and not just quantity of care.

A growing number of Republicans have signalled a willingness to accept increased revenue, but Blunt is one of the few to explicitly leave the door open to raising marginal rates. On Thursday, Sen. John Thune (R-SD) predicted that Republicans in the House would also support such a proposal.

Economy

GOP Senator: Obama Should Find Common Ground By Adopting Policies ‘Just Like Romney Suggested’

Since President Obama’s re-election, Republicans have made rhetorical overtures towards increasing revenue to avoid the coming fiscal cliff, but have so far refused to budge on increasing marginal tax rates on Americans earning more than $250,000 a year.

Instead, GOP leaders have laid out a “compromise” that is virtually identical to the tax proposal offered by failed presidential candidate Mitt Romney, arguing that the country can increase revenue by closing tax loopholes and relying on economic growth. On Tuesday morning, Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) directly encouraged Obama to find common ground with Republicans by adopting Romney’s economic proposal:

BLUNT: I think, frankly, this is a great opportunity for the president to step forward, he’s just been reelected, he doesn’t have to run for office again, and come up with a plan that actually can pass. And I think that means, don’t do the across the board cuts, come up with a way to have really targeted cuts and look at ways to increase revenue by one growing the economy, and two, maybe look at the tax code, just like Governor Romney suggested, you look at tax code and increase revenue without increasing taxes.

Watch it:

Adopting Romney’s policies is both bad politics and policy. Republicans have long relied on reducing or eliminating tax deductions to pay for lower income tax rates and deficit reduction — even though tax reform would not produce enough savings to lower tax rates and cut the deficit, and would target deductions that benefit middle class Americans. As the Congressional Budget Office concluded, “Given the barriers to eliminating or reducing most tax expenditures, it may prove difficult to gain more than $100 billion to $150 billion” a year from this approach.

Keeping tax rates low for the richest Americans would also have no significant negative impact on the economy and, if history is any guide, is unlikely to produce the kind of economic growth Republicans anticipate.

Election

GOP Lawmaker Who Called For Akin To Drop Out Now Supporting Him

Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO) released a statement Tuesday backing Senate candidate Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), a little less than a month after publicly calling for an end to his campaign after Akin’s “legitimate rape” debacle. Akin withstood the clamoring of many Republican lawmakers and fundraisers to stay in the race. But his party seems to be making their peace with him now that the official deadline for his withdrawal has passed. Blunt echoed Newt Gingrich, who exhorted Republicans to overlook Akin’s comments and support him because of a “moral obligation” to win a majority in the Senate.

In August, Blunt told MSNBC he hoped Akin would withdraw:

Todd needs to get out of this race…it’s not helpful. He’s a person who I think will ultimately look at this and try to figure out the greater good. I didn’t say I was confident … I’m hopeful he will and I believe he will. He’s an engineer, he’s a quantitative guy. I think at some point you have to add up the columns here, and my belief is that by anyway you add them up, they don’t add up.

On Tuesday, Blunt embraced Akin in a statement:

Congressman Akin and I don’t agree on everything, but he and I agree the Senate majority must change. From Governor Romney to the county courthouse, I’ll be working for the Republican ticket in Missouri, and that includes Todd Akin.

The Missouri Republican Party has also changed its mind about Akin. After the August deadline to drop out passed, Party Chariman David Cole sent a memo to the Republican State Committee warning that Akin “posed a threat” and reassuring them there was still time to change his mind:

It has become increasingly clear that Congressman Akin’s comments over the weekend are not just a distraction—they pose a threat to our Party’s chances of retaking control of the US Senate and impact other races here in Missouri…This afternoon, Congressman Akin stated that he intends to remain in the race. While one may question the wisdom of this choice, there will still be time for the Congressman to reevaluate his decision in the coming days. Despite today’s widely-reported 5:00 deadline for Congressman Akin to withdraw from the race, Missouri statute allows for candidates to withdraw at a later date, so there will still be time for him to reconsider his current decision to continue his campaign.

Now, it seems, Cole has decided to make the best of Akin’s refusal to drop out:

Just like all of our GOP candidates elected in the August primary, the Missouri Republican Party stands behind Congressman Todd Akin in his race for United State Senate. Claire McCaskill is far too liberal for Missouri—voting with Barack Obama 95% of the time since 2010 and supporting every major piece of his reckless agenda. We are confident that Todd will defeat McCaskill in November, and the Missouri Republican Party will do everything we can to assist in his efforts.

Blunt also serves as a liasion between Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign and the Senate Republicans. Romney previously said Akin should drop out of the race, but former rival Gingrich recently predicted Romney would come around and support Akin. Sen. Jim DeMint’s (R-SC) super PAC, the Senate Conservatives Fund, is also preparing to back Akin now that he has agreed to change his position on an earmark ban the Fund supports. Rick Santorum has also announced that he is backing Akin, and may donate to his campaign through the Patriot Voices PAC.

Karl Rove’s Crossroads GPS and the National Republican Senatorial Committee have claimed they will not raise money for his campaign.

Update

The National Republican Senatorial Committee, which previously said it would not invest in Akin’s campaign if he stayed in the race, released the following statement: “There is no question that for Missourians who believe we need to stop the reckless Washington spending, rein-in the role of government in people’s lives, and finally focus on growing jobs in this country that Todd Akin is a far more preferable candidate than liberal Senator Claire McCaskil. As with every Republican Senate candidate, we hope Todd Akin wins in November and we will continue to monitor this race closely in the days ahead.”

Security

Senate Draft Letter Presses Administration To Offer Few Concessions For Confidence-Building Deal With Iran

Sens. Blunt (L) and Menendez (R)

With negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program moving to Moscow next week, a draft letter to be circulated among Senators for signature calls on the Obama administration to not offer Iran major concessions without a comprehensive deal on its nuclear program. The draft letter, obtained by ThinkProgress, says that, should the Iranians not take certain steps demanded by the Senators, the U.S. should “reevaluate the utility of further talks.”

Authored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Roy Blunt (R-MO), the draft letter outlines the “absolute minimum steps” Iran must take in Moscow: shutting down its Fordow enrichment facility, ending enrichment of uranium to high levels, and shipping out its stockpile of high-enriched uranium. The letter says that Iran’s agreement to these steps would “justify continued discussions,” but doesn’t outline any other possible concessions.

While that leaves the door open for other possible lesser concessions, the Senators rule out acceding to a key Iranian goal until Iran agrees to the full spectrum of Western and U.N. demands. The New York Times reported that, in Baghdad, Iran asked for “an easing of the onerous economic sanctions imposed by the West,” something the Iranians have “relentlessly” pursued. But the Senators refuse to consider such steps without a comprehensive deal. In the draft letter, they write:

Barring full, verifiable Iranian compliance with all Security Council resolutions and full cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], including a new, far more intrusive inspections regime under the additional protocol, we see no circumstances under which Iran should be relieved from the current sanctions or those scheduled to come into effect at the end of this month.

That restriction could, in effect, stymie moves toward a “confidence-building” deal. A deal identical to the one mentioned by the Senators — demanding the “absolute minimum steps” but offering little sanctions relief — was on the table in Baghdad. After it failed to advance, an Iranian diplomat told the Christian Science Monitor that Iran would not “accept these things this way.”

Read more

Older

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

Sign Up