The Texas freshman has fired these shots from a comfortable position:
a senator representing a deep-red state and member of the minority
whose support is not essential to moving any legislation. He's insulated
from the responsibilities of governing; he can freely vote the way he
wants (he almost never votes for final passage of a bill) and talk smack
about his colleagues without having to take real risks.
But now the freshman senator and his fellow Obamacare defunders, most
notably Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT), have found themselves in an unthinkable
position. The House granted their wish on Friday and passed legislation
that eliminates funding for Obamacare in a bill to keep the government
funded, sending the battle to the Senate. That means that for once,
these senators have have to put their votes where their mouths are.
Their first instinct was to concede defeat and slink away in the Senate, but after a furious reaction from House Republicans, they feel renewed pressure to walk the walk.
"I hope that every Senate Republican will stand together and oppose
cloture on the bill in order to keep the House bill intact and not let
Harry Reid add Obamacare funding back in," Cruz said in a statement
Friday, referring to the GOP's ability to filibuster.
Lee said that "with a unified Senate Republicans Caucus, we will convince enough Democrats" to agree to defund Obamacare.
Hope, after all, isn't much of a plan.
"It's pretty clear they had no plan all along," said a senior House
Republican aide after the vote on Friday. "They already let Senate
Democrats leave for the weekend. Where is the action?"
There are a several ways they can actually fight this battle. Senate
Democrats ultimately need some Republican votes to advance any
continuing resolution: 60 votes are required to begin and end debate;
Democrats have 55. One option would be to take to the airwaves and
grassroots to raise the heat on fellow Republicans to filibuster until
Democratic leaders agree to keep the provision of the House's bill that
defunds Obamacare. Another option for Cruz and his colleagues is to
raise a ruckus and demand an open debate, creating an opportunity to
mount endless talking filibusters until Democrats fold.
But these options would risk a government shutdown as the eyes of the
nation look upon them, subjecting them to fierce criticism for grinding
federal services to a halt for the purpose of waging a divisive,
ideological battle. Even worse, it risks damaging the GOP's credibility
in upcoming elections and would place the blame squarely on them.
One thing is for sure: Cruz and Lee will lose the battle. Democrats
vow not to defund Obamacare, and even if Congress does so, President
Barack Obama has threatened to veto it. The only question is if Cruz and
Lee go down fighting and leave it all on the field, or if they relent
and reveal that their Obamacare rhetoric was a bluff all along.
If, by some miracle, Senate Republicans are successful in delaying
the legislation long enough to face a real government shutdown -- the
first since 1996 -- the party is likely to pay a political price. Cruz
has seemed unconcerned about the political blowback of such a scenario,
likening a shutdown to an extended weekend in July.
"Republicans are simply postponing for a few days the inevitable
choice they must face: pass a clean bill to fund the government, or
force a shutdown," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said
on Friday. "I have said it before but it seems to bear repeating: the
Senate will not pass any bill that defunds or delays Obamacare."
Monday, September 30, 2013
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Bill Clinton on the shutdown: ‘There are times when you have to call people’s bluff’
RAW STORY
Bill Clinton has some advice for Democrats and President Obama, learned during his own experience with government shutdowns.
Speaking to George Stephanopoulos on ABC, Clinton called the actions of the House Republicans “spiteful” and that they are “begging America to fail,” adding that “I think there are times when you have to call people’s bluff.”
Clinton would not negotiate, he said. “The current price of stopping it is higher than the price of letting the Republicans do it and taking their medicine,” he said. “If they’re going to change the way the Constitution works and fundamentally alter the character of our country and damage the future of a lot of kids, you just have to say no.”...............
Bill Clinton has some advice for Democrats and President Obama, learned during his own experience with government shutdowns.
Speaking to George Stephanopoulos on ABC, Clinton called the actions of the House Republicans “spiteful” and that they are “begging America to fail,” adding that “I think there are times when you have to call people’s bluff.”
Clinton would not negotiate, he said. “The current price of stopping it is higher than the price of letting the Republicans do it and taking their medicine,” he said. “If they’re going to change the way the Constitution works and fundamentally alter the character of our country and damage the future of a lot of kids, you just have to say no.”...............
Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel blasts ‘irresponsible’ government shutdown threat
RAW STORY
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel slammed Republican lawmakers as “astoundingly irresponsible” for threatening to shut down the government over a short-sighted political whim.
If Congress fails to agree on a new budget measure by the close of the fiscal year on Monday, officials estimate that about half of the Pentagon’s nearly 800,000 civilian workers would be placed on unpaid leave.
The US military’s nearly 1.4 million troops would stay on the job but without pay.
“When you look at the greatest democracy in the world, the largest economy in the world putting our people through this, that’s not leadership, that’s abdication of responsibilities,” Hagel told reporters on his plane as he headed to South Korea.
“This is an astoundingly irresponsible way to govern.”
Hagel, a former Republican US senator from Nebraska who enlisted to serve as a soldier in the Vietnam War, denounced those lawmakers who “want to hold the nation hostage to whatever political price they want.”
He was referring to far-right tea party lawmakers who insisted they would not support a budget to fund the government if it finances President Barack Obama’s sweeping health care reform.
“It is dangerously short-sighted and irresponsible, because what will this lead to in the United States of America if this continues is we will have a country that’s ungovernable,” Hagel said.
He expressed hope that there would be enough lawmakers who would find common ground to fund the government and avert a potentially catastrophic shutdown.
The House of Representatives was due to vote later Saturday on a Republican plan that keeps government open through mid-December while delaying implementation of Obama’s health care law.
The White House has vowed to veto any such bill.
Federal agencies have made plans to furlough all non-essential employees starting Tuesday, the first day of the 2014 fiscal year, barring a vote in both chambers of Congress to fund the government beyond Monday night.
US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel slammed Republican lawmakers as “astoundingly irresponsible” for threatening to shut down the government over a short-sighted political whim.
If Congress fails to agree on a new budget measure by the close of the fiscal year on Monday, officials estimate that about half of the Pentagon’s nearly 800,000 civilian workers would be placed on unpaid leave.
The US military’s nearly 1.4 million troops would stay on the job but without pay.
“When you look at the greatest democracy in the world, the largest economy in the world putting our people through this, that’s not leadership, that’s abdication of responsibilities,” Hagel told reporters on his plane as he headed to South Korea.
“This is an astoundingly irresponsible way to govern.”
Hagel, a former Republican US senator from Nebraska who enlisted to serve as a soldier in the Vietnam War, denounced those lawmakers who “want to hold the nation hostage to whatever political price they want.”
He was referring to far-right tea party lawmakers who insisted they would not support a budget to fund the government if it finances President Barack Obama’s sweeping health care reform.
“It is dangerously short-sighted and irresponsible, because what will this lead to in the United States of America if this continues is we will have a country that’s ungovernable,” Hagel said.
He expressed hope that there would be enough lawmakers who would find common ground to fund the government and avert a potentially catastrophic shutdown.
The House of Representatives was due to vote later Saturday on a Republican plan that keeps government open through mid-December while delaying implementation of Obama’s health care law.
The White House has vowed to veto any such bill.
Federal agencies have made plans to furlough all non-essential employees starting Tuesday, the first day of the 2014 fiscal year, barring a vote in both chambers of Congress to fund the government beyond Monday night.
Friday, September 27, 2013
College student calls Ted Cruz out for lying about him in anti-Obamacare speech
RAW STORY
A Rutgers University student who found himself being cited by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as a cautionary tale told MSNBC host Ed Schultz on Friday that Cruz distorted his story for the purposes of arguing against the Affordable Care Act.
“It’s kind of shameful for him to act as if he is acting in the best interest of young folks, while pushing for his own agenda,” John Connelly said of Cruz.
Connelly told Schultz he has never met nor spoken to Cruz or his staff. But during a 21-hour speech earlier this week, Cruz argued Connelly — who was quoted in a Sept. 14 Wall Street Journal article about unemployment among Americans under the age of 25 — was a victim of the new law.
“John Connelly thought he was on the right track in life. The son of a New Jersey auto mechanic, he was the first in his family to go to college when he enrolled in Rutgers in 2009,” Cruz said on the Senate floor. “Four years later, the 22-year-old found himself $21,000 in debt, without a permanent job and sleeping on friends’ couches in New Jersey and Brooklyn.”
But as Connelly said to Schultz, those problems weren’t caused by the new law, commonly referred to as “Obamacare.”
“It seems kind of bizarre that he’s blaming a law that was passed in 2010 on trends that go back well past 2007,” Connelly explained, adding that little more than half of Americans in his age bracket have full-time jobs, while battling dwindling pay and rising housing and tuition debt.
“It was almost as if he told his office to go out and find the worst example of the point he was trying to quote,” Connelly said, adding that not only has he benefitted personally from the law, but that it allows his younger sister to seek medical treatment despite having pre-existing conditions, something that a “free market dystopia” Cruz seeks would not have permitted.................
A Rutgers University student who found himself being cited by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as a cautionary tale told MSNBC host Ed Schultz on Friday that Cruz distorted his story for the purposes of arguing against the Affordable Care Act.
“It’s kind of shameful for him to act as if he is acting in the best interest of young folks, while pushing for his own agenda,” John Connelly said of Cruz.
Connelly told Schultz he has never met nor spoken to Cruz or his staff. But during a 21-hour speech earlier this week, Cruz argued Connelly — who was quoted in a Sept. 14 Wall Street Journal article about unemployment among Americans under the age of 25 — was a victim of the new law.
“John Connelly thought he was on the right track in life. The son of a New Jersey auto mechanic, he was the first in his family to go to college when he enrolled in Rutgers in 2009,” Cruz said on the Senate floor. “Four years later, the 22-year-old found himself $21,000 in debt, without a permanent job and sleeping on friends’ couches in New Jersey and Brooklyn.”
But as Connelly said to Schultz, those problems weren’t caused by the new law, commonly referred to as “Obamacare.”
“It seems kind of bizarre that he’s blaming a law that was passed in 2010 on trends that go back well past 2007,” Connelly explained, adding that little more than half of Americans in his age bracket have full-time jobs, while battling dwindling pay and rising housing and tuition debt.
“It was almost as if he told his office to go out and find the worst example of the point he was trying to quote,” Connelly said, adding that not only has he benefitted personally from the law, but that it allows his younger sister to seek medical treatment despite having pre-existing conditions, something that a “free market dystopia” Cruz seeks would not have permitted.................
All Republicans Want in Exchange for Not Destroying the Economy Is Everything
Philip Bump
Republicans gave The National Review a draft of their starting point for negotiations with President Obama on the debt ceiling. It's jaw-dropping.
A quick reminder: the debt ceiling is the amount the government is allowed to borrow in order to pay bills accrued by Congress. Here is what the Republicans offer:
Some of these things, we will also note, are complete non-starters from a legal perspective. The EPA climate regulations, for example, are essentially mandated by the Supreme Court. George W. Bush dragged his feet on implementing regulations, but lawsuits from various environmental organizations helped force the issue. Adding that to a completely unrelated political measure is pure denial.
We understand that the point of negotiations is to start from an extreme position and then navigate toward a compromise. But it is helpful if you also enter negotiations appearing to be rational.
Obama, for his part, has staked out an extreme position as well: no deals. And he probably means it; a few weeks ago, he said this to ABC's George Stephanopoulos, via Crooks and Liars.
Republicans gave The National Review a draft of their starting point for negotiations with President Obama on the debt ceiling. It's jaw-dropping.
A quick reminder: the debt ceiling is the amount the government is allowed to borrow in order to pay bills accrued by Congress. Here is what the Republicans offer:
- Suspend the debt limit until December 2014.
- Delay Obamacare for a year.
- Include tax reform measures along the lines of the Rep. Paul Ryan principles.
- Agree to a slew of environmental issues: Approve the Keystone pipeline, kill EPA clean air and climate regulations, increase drilling.
- Approve "regulatory reforms" including the REINS Act, which would basically gut the executive authority to make any regulations.
- Implement spending cuts, including reforming retirement programs, the child tax credit ("to prevent fraud"), and, of course, ending Dodd-Frank.
- Reforming health spending, including tort reform.
Some of these things, we will also note, are complete non-starters from a legal perspective. The EPA climate regulations, for example, are essentially mandated by the Supreme Court. George W. Bush dragged his feet on implementing regulations, but lawsuits from various environmental organizations helped force the issue. Adding that to a completely unrelated political measure is pure denial.
We understand that the point of negotiations is to start from an extreme position and then navigate toward a compromise. But it is helpful if you also enter negotiations appearing to be rational.
Obama, for his part, has staked out an extreme position as well: no deals. And he probably means it; a few weeks ago, he said this to ABC's George Stephanopoulos, via Crooks and Liars.
"[I]f we continue to set a precedent in which a president — any president, a Republican president, a Democratic president — where the opposing party controls the House of Representatives, if that president is in a situation in which each time the United States is called upon to pay its bills the other party can simply sit there and say, 'Well, we're not gonna pay the bills unless you give us what we want,' that changes the constitutional structure of this government entirely."Which is exactly what the Republicans are advocating. Unable to win elections to regain the Senate — ironically in part because the deeply conservative base supported unelectable Senate candidates in primaries — they've created their Amazon wish list of things, presumably hoping that the president might buy one or two. But unfortunately, he's at his credit limit.
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Ted Cruz declines Reid’s offer to continue speaking so he can make Limbaugh appointment
RAW STORY
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and some of his Republicans ended their filibuster-style speech Wednesday against Obamacare after more than 21 hours.
The tea party-backed Texas senator began speaking at 2:41 p.m. Tuesday and continued until shortly after noon Wednesday, in a speech that covered a wide range of unrelated topics, such as Dr. Seuss stories, Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” Toby Keith song lyrics and multiple references to an awards acceptance speech given by actor Ashton Kutcher.
He also compared Senate Republicans to the Rebel Alliance in the Star Wars movies and wondered whether a masked, Darth Vader-like figure would emerge to make disturbing comment to his closest Senate ally, Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee.
“Mike Lee, I am your father,” Cruz said, deepening his voice to deliver a variation on Vader’s signature line from the films.
The speech could not be officially considered a filibuster, however, because it did not delay Senate business.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he and Cruz reached an agreement to allow the Republican first-term senator to speak before the Senate voted on a measure to keep the government funded after the fiscal year ends Monday.
Cruz acknowledged that Reid had the right to end his speech on the Senate floor, and he agreed to stop talking by noon.
As the hour neared, Reid offered to let Cruz and his Senate supporters continue talking until 1 p.m., when a cloture vote is scheduled on the government funding bill.
But Cruz stuck to his earlier agreement with the Senate’s top Democrat, perhaps because he had other plans.
According to RushLimbaugh.com, the Texas Republican was scheduled to appear at 1 p.m. on the prominent conservative’s radio program.
Cruz repeatedly referred to his speech as a “filibuster” during his appearance on Limbaugh’s show, and he complained about his Republican Senate colleagues “showboating” and making symbolic gestures for their constituents.
“We don’t even talk about how to win a fight,” Cruz said.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and some of his Republicans ended their filibuster-style speech Wednesday against Obamacare after more than 21 hours.
The tea party-backed Texas senator began speaking at 2:41 p.m. Tuesday and continued until shortly after noon Wednesday, in a speech that covered a wide range of unrelated topics, such as Dr. Seuss stories, Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged,” Toby Keith song lyrics and multiple references to an awards acceptance speech given by actor Ashton Kutcher.
He also compared Senate Republicans to the Rebel Alliance in the Star Wars movies and wondered whether a masked, Darth Vader-like figure would emerge to make disturbing comment to his closest Senate ally, Utah’s Sen. Mike Lee.
“Mike Lee, I am your father,” Cruz said, deepening his voice to deliver a variation on Vader’s signature line from the films.
The speech could not be officially considered a filibuster, however, because it did not delay Senate business.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said he and Cruz reached an agreement to allow the Republican first-term senator to speak before the Senate voted on a measure to keep the government funded after the fiscal year ends Monday.
Cruz acknowledged that Reid had the right to end his speech on the Senate floor, and he agreed to stop talking by noon.
As the hour neared, Reid offered to let Cruz and his Senate supporters continue talking until 1 p.m., when a cloture vote is scheduled on the government funding bill.
But Cruz stuck to his earlier agreement with the Senate’s top Democrat, perhaps because he had other plans.
According to RushLimbaugh.com, the Texas Republican was scheduled to appear at 1 p.m. on the prominent conservative’s radio program.
Cruz repeatedly referred to his speech as a “filibuster” during his appearance on Limbaugh’s show, and he complained about his Republican Senate colleagues “showboating” and making symbolic gestures for their constituents.
“We don’t even talk about how to win a fight,” Cruz said.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Friday, September 20, 2013
Thursday, September 19, 2013
The Benghazi Testimony The Conservative Media Will Not Dare Show You
MMFA
Florida Representative Alan Grayson used his opportunity at today's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Benghazi to dismantle many of the myths spread by the conservative media.
Here are just some of the myths his line of questioning debunked:
Conservative media figures have claimed Ambassador Chris Stevens only went to Benghazi under orders from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Jeff Kuhner of the Washington Times went so far as to say Clinton "sent him on a suicide mission. Mrs. Clinton has American blood on her hands."
Grayson's questioning of Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management, debunked this myth:
Today's testimony should put an end to that claim:
Florida Representative Alan Grayson used his opportunity at today's House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing on Benghazi to dismantle many of the myths spread by the conservative media.
Here are just some of the myths his line of questioning debunked:
Conservative media figures have claimed Ambassador Chris Stevens only went to Benghazi under orders from then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Jeff Kuhner of the Washington Times went so far as to say Clinton "sent him on a suicide mission. Mrs. Clinton has American blood on her hands."
Grayson's questioning of Patrick Kennedy, Under Secretary of State for Management, debunked this myth:
GRAYSON: Who decided that Ambassador Stevens go to Benghazi on September 11, 2012?Additionally Grayson elicited testimony from Kennedy calling into question conservative myths about security at the Benghazi compound:
KENNEDY: It was the Ambassador's decision, sir.
GRAYSON: Now was Secretary Clinton responsible in any way for reviewing and approving the in-country movements of U.S. ambassadors, either Ambassador Stevens or anyone else?
KENNEDY: No, sir.
GRAYSON: Did the Ambassador, when he went to Benghazi, have a normal security detail in accordance with the State Department procedures and rules at that time?Furthermore Grayson's questioning of Kennedy also debunked the conservative mythology that President Obama and then-Secretary of State Clinton were derelict in their duties the night of the attack. For instance, Fox's Monica Crowley has claimed that "the two leaders of the U.S. Government" were "unaccounted for that night. We have no narrative of where they were or what they were doing."
KENNEDY: Yes, sir. He had two diplomatic security special agents who accompanied him from Tripoli to Benghazi.
[...]
GRAYSON: Was there any money that was appropriated for the purpose of improving that post that was unspent at that time?
KENNEDY: No sir, we were -- there was no specific money appropriated for Benghazi. We were simply taking money from other locations. But all the requests that they put forward as I mentions save one -- which is the guard towers which were determined to be unnecessary and potentially too attention getting, we -- all their requests were fulfilled.
Today's testimony should put an end to that claim:
GRAYSON: Did the White House ever ignore any reports regarding this attack?No doubt this part of Patrick Kennedy's testimony will never see the light of day on Fox or in the conservative media.
KENNEDY: No, sir, not that I'm aware of.
GRAYSON: Did Secretary Clinton ever ignore any reports regarding this attack?
KENNEDY: No, sir, I personally spoke to Secretary Clinton that evening and Secretary Clinton was being constantly briefed by our operation center all evening.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Bachmann and McDonnell make watchdog group’s ‘Most Corrupt’ lawmakers list
RAW STORY
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) were among the more prominent names on a list of the “most corrupt” members of Congress released by a congressional watchdog group on Wednesday.
The report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) names 13 lawmakers in all — six Democrats and 11 Republicans — for allegedly breaking campaign laws or congressional ethics regulations. Six of the people named in the report, including McConnell, have been cited by CREW at least three times for possible violations.
“Why are we still talking about these six? If the Department of Justice (DOJ), the House and Senate ethics committees, and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) were doing their jobs, we wouldn’t be,” CREW said in a statement accompanying the annual report. “The glacial pace of investigations into misconduct means many cases have dragged on for years and some have been dropped entirely with no explanation, despite strong evidence.”
Bachmann, who announced in May 2013 she would not seek re-election, was named to CREW’s list as a result of ongoing investigations by the Federal Election Commission, House Ethics Committee, and Federal Bureau of Investigation for allegedly using funds from her superPAC to pay campaign staffers, a violation of campaign finance laws.
McConnell was named in the report for the fourth time following the discovery of secret audio from a February 2013 meeting in which members of his staff used official resources to put together research on prospective political opponents, which would break Senate rules.
Reps. Vern Buchanan (R-FL), Michael Grimm (R-NY), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Hal Rogers (R-KY) and Don Young (R-AK) were the other repeat members of the list. Also named in the report were Reps. Paul Broun (R-GA), Scott Desjarlais (R-TN) Michael Grimm (R-NY), Hal Rogers (R-KY) and David Valadao (R-CA), as well as Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ).
Four other House members — Reps. Bill Owens (D-NY), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Aaron Schock (R-IL), and John Tierney (D-MA) were given “dishonorable mention” status for allegedly using their office for personal gain.
Read CREW’s report in its entirety below.
Rep. Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) were among the more prominent names on a list of the “most corrupt” members of Congress released by a congressional watchdog group on Wednesday.
The report by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) names 13 lawmakers in all — six Democrats and 11 Republicans — for allegedly breaking campaign laws or congressional ethics regulations. Six of the people named in the report, including McConnell, have been cited by CREW at least three times for possible violations.
“Why are we still talking about these six? If the Department of Justice (DOJ), the House and Senate ethics committees, and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) were doing their jobs, we wouldn’t be,” CREW said in a statement accompanying the annual report. “The glacial pace of investigations into misconduct means many cases have dragged on for years and some have been dropped entirely with no explanation, despite strong evidence.”
Bachmann, who announced in May 2013 she would not seek re-election, was named to CREW’s list as a result of ongoing investigations by the Federal Election Commission, House Ethics Committee, and Federal Bureau of Investigation for allegedly using funds from her superPAC to pay campaign staffers, a violation of campaign finance laws.
McConnell was named in the report for the fourth time following the discovery of secret audio from a February 2013 meeting in which members of his staff used official resources to put together research on prospective political opponents, which would break Senate rules.
Reps. Vern Buchanan (R-FL), Michael Grimm (R-NY), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Hal Rogers (R-KY) and Don Young (R-AK) were the other repeat members of the list. Also named in the report were Reps. Paul Broun (R-GA), Scott Desjarlais (R-TN) Michael Grimm (R-NY), Hal Rogers (R-KY) and David Valadao (R-CA), as well as Senate Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Robert Menendez (D-NJ).
Four other House members — Reps. Bill Owens (D-NY), Peter Roskam (R-IL), Aaron Schock (R-IL), and John Tierney (D-MA) were given “dishonorable mention” status for allegedly using their office for personal gain.
Read CREW’s report in its entirety below.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Republicans Like The Affordable Care Act More Than Obamacare
TPM
Republicans like the 2010 health care law better when it's called by its proper name -- the Affordable Care Act -- instead of Obamacare, according to a new Fox News poll.
Republican support for the law jumped eight percent, from 14 percent for Obamacare to 22 percent for the Affordable Care Act, when pollsters revised the question's language.
Overall support increased from 34 percent to 39 percent with the change. Democratic support moved one percent; independent support rose four percent.
The poll of 900 registered voters was conducted from Sept. 6 to 9, using live telephone interviews. According to the poll, 443 people were asked about Obamacare; 457 were asked about the Affordable Care Act.
Republicans like the 2010 health care law better when it's called by its proper name -- the Affordable Care Act -- instead of Obamacare, according to a new Fox News poll.
Republican support for the law jumped eight percent, from 14 percent for Obamacare to 22 percent for the Affordable Care Act, when pollsters revised the question's language.
Overall support increased from 34 percent to 39 percent with the change. Democratic support moved one percent; independent support rose four percent.
The poll of 900 registered voters was conducted from Sept. 6 to 9, using live telephone interviews. According to the poll, 443 people were asked about Obamacare; 457 were asked about the Affordable Care Act.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Friday, September 13, 2013
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
How The Year-Long Effort To Politicize The Benghazi Tragedy Fell Flat
THINK PROGRESS
One year ago today, on September 11, 2012, a U.S. diplomatic outpost and Central Intelligence Agency annex were attacked by extremists in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans, U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, U.S. foreign service officer Sean Smith, and two security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALS.
While the Obama administration had been successful in degrading the capabilities of core-al Qaeda — or the terror organization’s centralized version that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington — the tragedy reminded Americans and U.S. allies that the threat from like-minded extremists was still alive and well.
Instead of joining to unite the country in the face of this terrible tragedy, Republicans, at first led by then-GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and later Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), turned the Benghazi attacks into a political fiasco, searching far and near for a way to hang the blame on President Obama and with the aim of damaging his political stature at the least, or at most, bringing down members of his national security team or even ultimately his presidency.
But the long, drawn-out campaign to bring down Obama turned up nothing. Everything conservatives and Republicans held up as evidence of malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi and its aftermath was later discredited by either facts or logic. The right’s biggest achievement throughout this whole Benghazi mess was keeping Susan Rice, who was U.S. ambassador to the U.N. at the time of the attacks, from being nominated as Secretary of State. But even that campaign — led by McCain — seemed to backfire as Rice is now Obama’s National Security Adviser, a position with arguably more influence on the President’s foreign policy thinking.
Media Matters has a run-down of the some of the top Benghazi myths. And throughout the GOP’s Benghazi witch-hunt, ThinkProgress has been compiling a timeline of the key events — from Romney’s first baseless attacks on Obama, the faux-scandal surrounding the infamous “talking points” delivered by then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, McCain’s smear campaign, and highlights of how all the GOP-led attacks on Obama were eventually fully debunked. On January 23, during a Senate hearing on Benghazi, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton scolded Republicans for politicizing Benghazi, and in this instance, for focusing on whether a protest over an anti-Muslim video sparked the attacks:
Conservatives aren’t done with Benghazi. Fox News, Tea Party types and a dwindling number of Republican hangers on in Congress keep trying to pin Obama down with something. But they’ll never find anything nefarious. Benghazi is not the next Watergate. Nor will President Obama be impeached over the matter. “The whole thing defies logic,” an exacerbated Obama said in May. “And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.
“We dishonor [the four Americans killed in Benghazi] when we turn things like this into a political circus,” Obama added. “What happened was tragic. It was carried out by extremists inside of Libya. We are out there trying to hunt down the folks who carried this out, and we are trying to make sure that we fix the system so that it doesn’t happen again.”
One year ago today, on September 11, 2012, a U.S. diplomatic outpost and Central Intelligence Agency annex were attacked by extremists in Benghazi, Libya, killing four Americans, U.S. Ambassador to Libya, Chris Stevens, U.S. foreign service officer Sean Smith, and two security personnel, Glen Doherty and Tyrone Woods, both former Navy SEALS.
While the Obama administration had been successful in degrading the capabilities of core-al Qaeda — or the terror organization’s centralized version that was responsible for the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington — the tragedy reminded Americans and U.S. allies that the threat from like-minded extremists was still alive and well.
Instead of joining to unite the country in the face of this terrible tragedy, Republicans, at first led by then-GOP Presidential candidate Mitt Romney and later Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), turned the Benghazi attacks into a political fiasco, searching far and near for a way to hang the blame on President Obama and with the aim of damaging his political stature at the least, or at most, bringing down members of his national security team or even ultimately his presidency.
But the long, drawn-out campaign to bring down Obama turned up nothing. Everything conservatives and Republicans held up as evidence of malfeasance on the part of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi and its aftermath was later discredited by either facts or logic. The right’s biggest achievement throughout this whole Benghazi mess was keeping Susan Rice, who was U.S. ambassador to the U.N. at the time of the attacks, from being nominated as Secretary of State. But even that campaign — led by McCain — seemed to backfire as Rice is now Obama’s National Security Adviser, a position with arguably more influence on the President’s foreign policy thinking.
Media Matters has a run-down of the some of the top Benghazi myths. And throughout the GOP’s Benghazi witch-hunt, ThinkProgress has been compiling a timeline of the key events — from Romney’s first baseless attacks on Obama, the faux-scandal surrounding the infamous “talking points” delivered by then-U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, McCain’s smear campaign, and highlights of how all the GOP-led attacks on Obama were eventually fully debunked. On January 23, during a Senate hearing on Benghazi, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton scolded Republicans for politicizing Benghazi, and in this instance, for focusing on whether a protest over an anti-Muslim video sparked the attacks:
CLINTON: With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans! Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night decided to go kill some Americans?! What difference at this point does it make?! It is our job to figure out what happened and do everything we can to prevent it from ever happening again.We have updated the timeline which can be viewed here.
Conservatives aren’t done with Benghazi. Fox News, Tea Party types and a dwindling number of Republican hangers on in Congress keep trying to pin Obama down with something. But they’ll never find anything nefarious. Benghazi is not the next Watergate. Nor will President Obama be impeached over the matter. “The whole thing defies logic,” an exacerbated Obama said in May. “And the fact that this keeps on getting churned out, frankly, has a lot to do with political motivations.
“We dishonor [the four Americans killed in Benghazi] when we turn things like this into a political circus,” Obama added. “What happened was tragic. It was carried out by extremists inside of Libya. We are out there trying to hunt down the folks who carried this out, and we are trying to make sure that we fix the system so that it doesn’t happen again.”
Benghazi Conspiracy Rally On Capitol Hill Attracts Dozens Of People
THINK PROGRESS
WASHINGTON, DC — The first anniversary of the Benghazi tragedy was supposed to be the time for conservatives around the country to descend on the Capitol by the thousands, demanding that Congress reveal the truth. Less than one hundred bothered to show up.
The “Justice for Benghazi” rally was meant to be a joint effort between the Patriots4America and Special Operations Speak — two groups that have for months now been hammering establishment Republicans for what they see as not enough action to unveil what really happened in Benghazi, Libya last year. Special Operations Speak was behind a series of ads and petitions demanding that Speaker of the House John Boehner appoint a special committee to investigate the Obama administration cover-up of the attack and the deaths of four Americans including Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. According to organizers, as many as 5,000 people were expected to show up on the Hill and make their voices heard.
At the 12:30 PM start time for the rally, though, there wasn’t very much rallying going on. Instead, there were only a handful of people gathered near the open lawn that was meant to be barely containing thousands of supporters. Many of them were hiding from the ninety-five degree weather in the shade, jostling to have their picture taken with former Rep. Alan West (R-FL) who was there for an earlier event. Several of those milling about lamented that technical difficulties had prevented the organizers from setting up their audio equipment until the time when the protest was supposed to begin.
Even among those near the rallying point, not everyone present was even there for the rally itself. Several standing on the curb of the nearby traffic circle were there to support the thousands of motorcyclists who had intended to drive by en masse as a counter to a protest of how Muslim-Americans have been treated since 2001. Due to permit issues, however, the motorcycles only drove by at a rate of one every few minutes, leaving the onlookers to mingle with the Benghazi protesters.
The ages of the participants varied with old and young alike present and wielding signs calling for Obama’s impeachment. Among the latter was a young man named Jeff, who was there with Rebels for Liberty, a company devoted to promoting conservative values to youths. “I definitely think there needs to be a full investigation, that the investigations need to be open to the American people,” Jeff said when asked about Benghazi, adding that “they need to let the other witnesses that were there speak and let them say their piece.” When ThinkProgress asked him what he thought of CIA Director John Brennan’s written assurance that no CIA employee or contractor was being muzzled, Jeff scoffed. “Did you see [Director of National Intelligence James Clapper] when he sat before a hearing and tried to scratch the lies away?” he said.
As the speakers finally prepared to start, one Florida woman, Sheril Swanson, told ThinkProgress that she thought that Congress was doing “nowhere near enough” to get the truth out about Benghazi. Swanson had driven up the night before to attend the rally and was heading back to Florida the next night, but was there to demand answers on Benghazi.
“How did they know that it wasn’t going to last that long?” she asked when speaking to ThinkProgress. “How did they know that? That’s all they kept saying, they didn’t have enough time to send help? They were being attacked, they were being brutally murdered.”
Swanson does have a theory, though, about why help wasn’t sent: it was an inside job. “That tells me that they were involved,” she confided, referring to the withdrawal of security forces from the Benghazi annex. “I believe that guns were being run to Syria through Benghazi, I think the heat was coming down and our administration was ready to end our arms transfer, and the attack was scheduled.”
Once the rally finally got under way, the true number of those present was revealed, showing themselves to be less than a hundred total. That didn’t stop the speakers from trying to get the crowd riled up, asking them what they thought of claims that Benghazi was a “phony scandal.” “Obama’s a phony president!” one crowd member yelled back in response, his lone voice highlighting just how quiet what was meant to be a massive rally was.
Inside the building, however, the story is considerably different. There Speaker Boehner is still facing a full-throated rebellion from members of his caucus, who are insisting that he give them the ability to investigate Benghazi more fully. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the leading advocate for the creation of a special committee, filed a bill to do just that, lining up more than a hundred cosponsors to H.R. 36. Boehner has refused to allow that bill to hit the floor, however, leaving it for now in the House Rules Committee.
“What people were saying is, ‘we’re willing to go through regular order but now it’s been a full year’,” Wolf told The Hill, noting that his bill keeps gathering cosponsors even as it languishes. “We’re going to get to 218. We’re at 170 and we’ll continue to keep pushing it.” Even as the protests outside failed to materialize, Republican Congressmen continued to send out their press releases marking the anniversary of Benghazi, a sure sign that they don’t intend to give up the issue soon or stop demanding that their leadership follow the fringes..............
WASHINGTON, DC — The first anniversary of the Benghazi tragedy was supposed to be the time for conservatives around the country to descend on the Capitol by the thousands, demanding that Congress reveal the truth. Less than one hundred bothered to show up.
The “Justice for Benghazi” rally was meant to be a joint effort between the Patriots4America and Special Operations Speak — two groups that have for months now been hammering establishment Republicans for what they see as not enough action to unveil what really happened in Benghazi, Libya last year. Special Operations Speak was behind a series of ads and petitions demanding that Speaker of the House John Boehner appoint a special committee to investigate the Obama administration cover-up of the attack and the deaths of four Americans including Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens. According to organizers, as many as 5,000 people were expected to show up on the Hill and make their voices heard.
At the 12:30 PM start time for the rally, though, there wasn’t very much rallying going on. Instead, there were only a handful of people gathered near the open lawn that was meant to be barely containing thousands of supporters. Many of them were hiding from the ninety-five degree weather in the shade, jostling to have their picture taken with former Rep. Alan West (R-FL) who was there for an earlier event. Several of those milling about lamented that technical difficulties had prevented the organizers from setting up their audio equipment until the time when the protest was supposed to begin.
Even among those near the rallying point, not everyone present was even there for the rally itself. Several standing on the curb of the nearby traffic circle were there to support the thousands of motorcyclists who had intended to drive by en masse as a counter to a protest of how Muslim-Americans have been treated since 2001. Due to permit issues, however, the motorcycles only drove by at a rate of one every few minutes, leaving the onlookers to mingle with the Benghazi protesters.
The ages of the participants varied with old and young alike present and wielding signs calling for Obama’s impeachment. Among the latter was a young man named Jeff, who was there with Rebels for Liberty, a company devoted to promoting conservative values to youths. “I definitely think there needs to be a full investigation, that the investigations need to be open to the American people,” Jeff said when asked about Benghazi, adding that “they need to let the other witnesses that were there speak and let them say their piece.” When ThinkProgress asked him what he thought of CIA Director John Brennan’s written assurance that no CIA employee or contractor was being muzzled, Jeff scoffed. “Did you see [Director of National Intelligence James Clapper] when he sat before a hearing and tried to scratch the lies away?” he said.
As the speakers finally prepared to start, one Florida woman, Sheril Swanson, told ThinkProgress that she thought that Congress was doing “nowhere near enough” to get the truth out about Benghazi. Swanson had driven up the night before to attend the rally and was heading back to Florida the next night, but was there to demand answers on Benghazi.
“How did they know that it wasn’t going to last that long?” she asked when speaking to ThinkProgress. “How did they know that? That’s all they kept saying, they didn’t have enough time to send help? They were being attacked, they were being brutally murdered.”
Swanson does have a theory, though, about why help wasn’t sent: it was an inside job. “That tells me that they were involved,” she confided, referring to the withdrawal of security forces from the Benghazi annex. “I believe that guns were being run to Syria through Benghazi, I think the heat was coming down and our administration was ready to end our arms transfer, and the attack was scheduled.”
Once the rally finally got under way, the true number of those present was revealed, showing themselves to be less than a hundred total. That didn’t stop the speakers from trying to get the crowd riled up, asking them what they thought of claims that Benghazi was a “phony scandal.” “Obama’s a phony president!” one crowd member yelled back in response, his lone voice highlighting just how quiet what was meant to be a massive rally was.
Inside the building, however, the story is considerably different. There Speaker Boehner is still facing a full-throated rebellion from members of his caucus, who are insisting that he give them the ability to investigate Benghazi more fully. Rep. Frank Wolf (R-VA), the leading advocate for the creation of a special committee, filed a bill to do just that, lining up more than a hundred cosponsors to H.R. 36. Boehner has refused to allow that bill to hit the floor, however, leaving it for now in the House Rules Committee.
“What people were saying is, ‘we’re willing to go through regular order but now it’s been a full year’,” Wolf told The Hill, noting that his bill keeps gathering cosponsors even as it languishes. “We’re going to get to 218. We’re at 170 and we’ll continue to keep pushing it.” Even as the protests outside failed to materialize, Republican Congressmen continued to send out their press releases marking the anniversary of Benghazi, a sure sign that they don’t intend to give up the issue soon or stop demanding that their leadership follow the fringes..............
Fox anchor asks viewers to consider if bombing Syria is a harbinger of the Second Coming of Christ
RAW STORY
Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto on Monday devoted an entire segment to the possibility that a United States attack on Syria could be a sign of the End Times, a period in which Christians believe that Jesus Christ will return to face the emergence of the Antichrist.
“This Syria stuff is way old,” Cavuto explained. “I mean Old Testament old. That’s how old I’m talking about. Don’t laugh. Some biblical scholars say it’s all there in black and white.”
The Fox News host invited author Joel Rosenberg to weigh in on the link between the Syrian conflict and the Bible passages, which he said were “uncanny” and “kind of scary.”
“These are prophecies more than 2,700 years old, some of them, but they have not actually been fulfilled,” Rosenberg said. “But this prophecy, as you just pointed out, talks about the complete and utter destruction of Damascus. That’s an End Times or eschatological prophecy.”
“It’s a very sobering thought to think that a judgment of a city or a country could happen in which an entire city could be wiped out, but that is, in fact, what the Bible is predicting,” he added. “I think it’s wrong for people who teach Bible prophecies to guess — I mean, in a sense try to say for certain it’s going to happen now.”
“But you have 7 million Syrians that are already on the run, 2 million have left the country, 5 million are internally displaced. That Jeremiah 49 prophecy says that people will flee, but there will still be people in Damascus when the prophecy happens. So, the bottom line is that we don’t know if these two prophecies — Isaiah 17 and Jeremiah 49 — will happen in our lifetime or soon, but they could because they haven’t happened yet.”
“Amazing,” the Fox News host observed. “It’s in in there. It’s worth a read.”
Cavuto and Rosenberg did not speculate if one of the current world leaders could be the Antichrist at the time of Christ’s Second Coming.
Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto on Monday devoted an entire segment to the possibility that a United States attack on Syria could be a sign of the End Times, a period in which Christians believe that Jesus Christ will return to face the emergence of the Antichrist.
“This Syria stuff is way old,” Cavuto explained. “I mean Old Testament old. That’s how old I’m talking about. Don’t laugh. Some biblical scholars say it’s all there in black and white.”
The Fox News host invited author Joel Rosenberg to weigh in on the link between the Syrian conflict and the Bible passages, which he said were “uncanny” and “kind of scary.”
“These are prophecies more than 2,700 years old, some of them, but they have not actually been fulfilled,” Rosenberg said. “But this prophecy, as you just pointed out, talks about the complete and utter destruction of Damascus. That’s an End Times or eschatological prophecy.”
“It’s a very sobering thought to think that a judgment of a city or a country could happen in which an entire city could be wiped out, but that is, in fact, what the Bible is predicting,” he added. “I think it’s wrong for people who teach Bible prophecies to guess — I mean, in a sense try to say for certain it’s going to happen now.”
“But you have 7 million Syrians that are already on the run, 2 million have left the country, 5 million are internally displaced. That Jeremiah 49 prophecy says that people will flee, but there will still be people in Damascus when the prophecy happens. So, the bottom line is that we don’t know if these two prophecies — Isaiah 17 and Jeremiah 49 — will happen in our lifetime or soon, but they could because they haven’t happened yet.”
“Amazing,” the Fox News host observed. “It’s in in there. It’s worth a read.”
Cavuto and Rosenberg did not speculate if one of the current world leaders could be the Antichrist at the time of Christ’s Second Coming.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Florida AG Had Execution Delayed Because It Conflicted With Her Fundraiser
TPM
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) postponed an execution originally scheduled to take place Tuesday night because it conflicted with a fundraiser for a member of his cabinet, The Tampa Bay Times reported.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) requested that the execution of Marshall Lee Gore, 50, be pushed back to avoid being held the same night as her re-election kickoff event at her South Tampa, Fla. home. Gore was convicted of killing two women in South Florida in 1988.
Scott said Monday he was unaware of why the execution had been rescheduled but acknowledged that "[w]hen another Cabinet officer asks for something, we try to work with them."
Bondi, on the other hand, expressed regret for her request.
"The planned execution of Marshall Lee Gore had already been stayed twice by the courts, and we absolutely should not have requested that the date of the execution be moved," she told the Times.
Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) postponed an execution originally scheduled to take place Tuesday night because it conflicted with a fundraiser for a member of his cabinet, The Tampa Bay Times reported.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi (R) requested that the execution of Marshall Lee Gore, 50, be pushed back to avoid being held the same night as her re-election kickoff event at her South Tampa, Fla. home. Gore was convicted of killing two women in South Florida in 1988.
Scott said Monday he was unaware of why the execution had been rescheduled but acknowledged that "[w]hen another Cabinet officer asks for something, we try to work with them."
Bondi, on the other hand, expressed regret for her request.
"The planned execution of Marshall Lee Gore had already been stayed twice by the courts, and we absolutely should not have requested that the date of the execution be moved," she told the Times.
Monday, September 09, 2013
Sunday, September 08, 2013
Saturday, September 07, 2013
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)