DeMint Tries To Rewrite History: ‘This Was Not Bush’s Recession’
During a lengthy speech on the Senate floor yesterday about his opposition to the confirmation of Elana Kagan to the Supreme Court, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) went on a tangent, claiming the ongoing economic downturn “was not Bush’s recession” but was a “result of Democrat economic polices”:
DEMINT: The decision that have been made about our economy over the last couple of years have brought our economy to its knees. This is no longer something we can blame on President Bush. In fact, the Democrats have been in control of policy making, economic policy spending, for four years now. This is not Bush’s recession. This is the result of Democrat economic polices. This nomination will continue our move in the wrong direction.
Watch it:
Even the staunchly conservative Wall Street Journal editorial board understood it was Bush’s recession, writing in early 2009 that Bush’s comment that “Wall Street got drunk and we got a hangover,” “reveals how little the President comprehends about the source of his Administration’s economic undoing. To extend his metaphor, Who does Mr. Bush think was serving the liquor?” Even if one ignores everything after 2006, Bush still had the worst record of job creation in 40 years.
Moreover, the economy only began to recover after President Obama and the Democratic Congress passed the stimulus package in early 2009. Since then, the GDP has grown, the financial sector has recovered, and — while the overall employment situation is still bleak — private sector job growth has rebounded:
In a recent report, two leading economists “empirically proved” that the Obama’s stimulus package and other interventionist measures “helped avert a second Depression.” Without the stimulus package, GDP would have been 2 percent lower and an additional 2.7 million jobs would have been lost, they found. Meanwhile, “On every major measurement” of economic growth, “the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms,” the National Journal’s Ron Brownstein observed, citing Census data.
It’s odd that DeMint — a tea party leader who has tried to distance himself from Bush — would defend the former president. Bush’s economic record is clear — “the worst track record for job creation” of any modern president, anemic income growth, and increased poverty — but as Republicans attempt to repackage Bush’s failed economic policies as something new, perhaps it’s not surprising that DeMint is trying to resurrect Bush’s legacy.
- Comments
- 53
Granholm: Limbaugh’s Attack On American-Made Electric Vehicles Are ‘Un-American’
Last Friday, President Obama visited General Motors and Chrysler plants in Detroit, MI to resoundingly reaffirm the administration’s decision last year “to rescue the ailing auto industry.” While visiting the GM plant, the President test drove Chevrolet’s highly touted electric car, the Volt. In anticipation of Obama’s visit to Detroit, hate radio host Rush Limbaugh launched a campaign to deride Chevrolet’s electric vehicle, attacking “everything from the federal bailout of Chevy’s parent General Motors Corp. to the supposed superiority complex of people who would buy electric or hybrid cars.”
At a Center for American Progress event yesterday entitled “Securing Michigan’s Clean Energy Future,” Think Progress spoke with Gov. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI) about Limbaugh’s high-handed criticisms of the Chevy Volt. Granholm — a passionate advocate of clean energy as an avenue of job growth and economic revitalization — said Limbaugh’s claims are “just un-American.” She also pointed out that the Volt is a “‘good’ new story” and GM has successfully paid back its loans to the public:
Q: And we know you’ve had the disaster in the Gulf, you’ve had an oil spill in your own state. You know, you guys are doing a lot in making these investments in batteries and in new care. And here you have people like Rush Limbaugh, come out and say that the Volt is an “overpriced lemon.” What do you say to critics?
GRANHOLM: It’s just un-American. I can’t believe that somebody would say this about this American product. He hasn’t even driven it. He hasn’t sat in it. You know, why wouldn’t you be supportive of American manufacturers building American vehicles with American workers, who now have jobs as a result of this. Why wouldn’t you be supportive of that? It is mind-blowing to me. And of course, the public is getting paid back. You know, GM has paid back the loan — the bottom line is, is this is a “good” news story, and somebody who would twist it to be something negative obviously has another agenda. Which we all know he does.
Watch it:
During his vitriolic attack on the Volt last week, Limbaugh announced “with no small amount of pride that he turned down General Motors’ lucrative offer to continue advertising for the company because his strong principles would not allow him to recommend to people the Chevy Volt.” Last year, however, the hate radio host was singing quite a different tune. As Media Matter notes, when GM’s advertising dollars began flowing to his network in April 2009, Limbaugh eagerly endorsed the auto company’s payment protection plan despite lambasting GM only weeks earlier.
Bill O’Reilly asks why Obama has not come out in favor of same-sex marriages.
Lately, Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly has been flanking to the left of President Obama on gay rights issues. Late last month, O’Reilly suggested that the President should “sign an executive order” ending Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell (DADT). And yesterday, during a segment about U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision overturning Proposition 8, O’Reilly wondered why Obama has not come out in support of same-sex marriages:
O’REILLY: But why do you think he opposes it?
HOLDER: I don’t know. I mean, I wish we could get a reason from him…. I wish we could get a reason from him instead from Axelrod and his administration. Why do I think? I can’t speculate for the president. I don’t think anybody knows.
O’REILLY: Because I don’t know either. I mean, I got — I’ll sympathize with you. I don’t know why the president is against it either. I mean, you know.
Watch it:
O’Reilly’s concern is shared by many opponents of Proposition 8, who have expressed bewilderment over the administration’s response to the ruling. The Wonk Room breaks down the reaction to the President’s statement and recalls his past support for same-sex marriages.
Angle opposes civil rights protections for gays, wants clergy to endorse candidates from the pulpit.
Angle opposes civil rights protections for gays, wants clergy to endorse candidates from the pulpit.
In a June interview with a local Nevada NBC news affiliate, GOP U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle reaffirmed her belief that the separation of church and state is unconstitutional. The drafters of the Constitution “didn’t mean that we couldn’t bring our values to the political forum,” she said. The AP reports that — according to a questionnaire for a conservative PAC that endorsed her candidacy — Angle has expounded on that view and revealed more of her far-right positions on social issues:
Republican Sharron Angle believes the clergy should be allowed to endorse candidates from the pulpit and opposes laws allowing gays to adopt children. [...]
Among her positions, outlined in answers to 36 yes-or-no questions, Angle would oppose making sexual orientation a protected minority in civil rights laws. In a section on school prayer, she affirms that students and teachers should be able to talk openly about religion in schools, including the right to “publicly acknowledge the Creator.”
The federal government bans churches from participating in political campaigns on behalf of candidates, but Angle said clergy should be able to express views on candidates from the pulpit.
Also in the questionnaire, Angle reaffirmed her view that abortion should be illegal “in all cases” and considers a fetus a person under the Constitution. The GOP candidate had previously said that getting an abortion in cases for rape or incest would interfere with God’s “plan” and that women in those situations should instead make “a lemon situation into lemonade.”
ThinkFast: August 6, 2010
ThinkFast: August 6, 2010
The Labor Department’s employment report released this morning indicates the U.S. economy lost 131,000 jobs last month. Much of the decrease was due to the completion of work performed by temporary Census workers. Private-sector employment edged up by 71,000. June’s employment figures were revised downward from 125,000 jobs lost to 221,000.
The Obama administration named 14 U.S.-based individuals who were accused of being part of a “deadly pipeline” that routed money and fighters to the Somali al-Shabab network. “Attorney General Eric Holder said the indictments reflect a disturbing trend of recruitment efforts targeting U.S. residents to become terrorists.”
Yesterday, the Republican National Committee adopted a change to party rules requiring future candidates to “sign a pledge promising not to oppose their party’s eventual nominee in the race or else forego any national party money for their campaign effort.” The loyalty oath is meant to avoid defections like that of Gov. Charlie Crist, who dropped out of the GOP primary race to run as an independent.
Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell yesterday publicly asked WikiLeaks to return the tens of thousands of classified U.S. field reports from the war in Afghanistan it made available on its website earlier this month, as well as the 15,000 additional documents it may soon release. “We are asking them to do the right thing and not further exacerbate the damage done to date,” Morrell said.
“The number of Army soldiers forced to serve beyond their commitment has been cut in half in the past year and is on track to be eliminated by March 2011.” The practice, known as “stop loss,” has affected the majority of the Army’s soldiers since 2001, and has been blamed for low morale an even high suicide rates.
Anti-Choice Group Says Its ‘Prayers’ Have Been Answered When Abortion Clinic Closes Due To Doctor’s Leukemia
Anti-Choice Group Says Its ‘Prayers’ Have Been Answered When Abortion Clinic Closes Due To Doctor’s Leukemia
After more than 30 years in business, the Fayetteville Women’s Clinic in Arkansas closed its doors on July 30. The clinic had more than 500 patients and was “one of only two places in the state where women could have a surgical abortion.” While it focused mainly on obstetrics and gynecology, it also performed 700-800 abortions each year. The Fayetteville Women’s Clinic was also frequently targeted by protesters. Over the years, the office had been firebombed and the doctor kept a gun as a result of all the death threats he received.
40 Days for Life is one of the groups that frequently protested the clinic, run by Dr. William Harrison. It says it practices “a determined, peaceful approach to showing local communities the consequences of abortion in their own neighborhoods, for their own friends and families.” When the news came that Harrison’s clinic was shutting down, 40 Days for Life staffers praised and took credit for the news:
“This will be the sixth abortion center at a location where 40 Days for Life’s peaceful prayer vigils have been conducted to go out of business,” said Shawn Carney, 40 Days for Life campaign director. “It is truly an answer to prayer that abortions will no longer be carried out at this facility. All the glory belongs to God.” [...]
“How humbling will it be,” asked Carney, “to see God use the simplicity of prayer, fasting, outreach, and vigil to bring an end to abortion in many more areas, just like Fayetteville?”
“We rejoice over the babies that will be saved and the parents who will be spared from a lifetime of regret,” said Juliet Cassell, Fayetteville coordinator for 40 Days for Life, upon learning of the facility’s closure.
The actual reason that Harrison shut down his clinic is that he has leukemia — a fact not mentioned in the 40 Days for Life press release. According to the Fayetteville Flyer, these “health reasons” are why Harrison closed shop, although the doctor said “he plans to make a full recovery and hopefully reopen.”
ThinkProgress contacted David Bereit, 40 Days for Life’s national director, and asked him about this issue. Bereit reiterated that the clinic’s closure was “an answer to prayers,” but still said that he is praying for Harrison:
We have no doubt that the hundreds of volunteers who faithfully prayed outside that facility, as well as the dozens of pro-life counselors who lovingly offered alternatives to potential abortion customers, had an impact on the business of the Fayetteville Women’s Clinic — and this facility’s announced closure is certainly an answer to prayers.
Dr. Harrison and I have communicated on many occasions by e-mail over the last several years, and he knows that the local Fayetteville 40 Days for Life volunteers regularly pray for him and wish him no harm.
Kyl ‘Damaging U.S. Interests’ By Blocking Dominican Republic Ambassador Nominee Over Iran Sanctions
Kyl ‘Damaging U.S. Interests’ By Blocking Dominican Republic Ambassador Nominee Over Iran Sanctions
Back in November, President Obama nominated former president of National Council of La Raza and Arizona State University professor, Raul H. Yzaguirre, to serve as ambassador to the Dominican Republic on behalf of the U.S. Despite a devastating earthquake in neighboring Haiti and the fact that the Dominican Republic is home to the largest Caribbean economy, his nomination is still being stalled in the Senate by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ). Last night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent Kyl a letter, obtained by ThinkProgress, asking him to release his hold on Yzaguirre’s nomination “without further delay”:
Earlier in her letter, Clinton reasons that Yzaguirre’s nomination has been held up “for reasons completely unrelated to his credentials or fitness to serve.” Indeed, the fact that Kyl is bitter over the fact that the Iran Sanctions Act doesn’t make the Iranian people as miserable as he would like them to be has little do with U.S. interests in the Caribbean. And, as Clinton notes, the Dominican Republic is “a significant trading partner” and “a major hub for our relief and reconstruction efforts in neighboring Haiti.” The U.S. embassy in the Dominican Republic has been without a permanent ambassador for over 18 months. An aide from Sen. Harry Reid’s (D-NV) office pointed out that, if his nomination does not go through tonight, the Dominican Republic will have to wait at least another five weeks until congressional recess is over to have an ambassador.
Republicans in Congress have both blocked and delayed a number of critical nominations over reasons that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the nominees themselves. This past fall, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) brazenly blocked the confirmations of Arturo Valenzuela, Obama’s nominee to be assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere affairs, and Thomas A. Shannon Jr., the nominee to be ambassador to Brazil over the Obama administration’s refusal to recognize the de facto Honduran government of Roberto Micheletti. Shortly after DeMint agreed to drop his opposition to Shannon, Sen. George LeMieux (R-FL) decided to further delay Shannon’s critical confirmation over the innocent role he played in initiating talks with Cuba on family migration and direct mail service.
Nelson And Lincoln Vote To Permanently Extend Bush Tax Cuts, Massively Increase Deficit
Nelson And Lincoln Vote To Permanently Extend Bush Tax Cuts, Massively Increase Deficit
Last month, as the Senate was gridlocked by a Republican filibuster of a bill to extend much-needed unemployment benefits to millions of out-of-work Americans, Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) stood with the GOP against the extension. Nelson claimed that his concerns about the deficit overrode his support for the extension; he voted against the bill that finally passed 60-40.
Later that week, Nelson came out in support of an extension — “for now” — of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which adds many billions more to the deficit than the unemployment insurance extension. In fact, extending the Bush tax cuts for one year alone would add $115 billion to the deficit, compared to the “relatively tiny budgetary cost of $33 billion” for the extension of UI benefits.
Today, though, Ben Nelson provided further evidence that he is a deficit peacock — someone who claims to be concerned about the deficit but isn’t actually interested in taking serious steps toward a balanced budget. Before the final vote on the states’ aid bill that passed today, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) offered two amendments that would, in effect, permanently extend the Bush tax cuts. David Dayen has the results:
Before passing the state fiscal aid bill, Democrats actually gave Jim DeMint two votes on tax rates. He wanted to add massively to the deficit – literally trillions of dollars – by freezing in place the tax rates on individuals and “small businesses” that we have now, and which make us one of the most lightly-taxed industrialized nations on the planet. And look at this: Democrats rejected the measure entirely. On both votes, only Ben Nelson [and Sen. Blanche Lincoln (AR)] crossed the aisle to vote with all Republicans [except deficit hawk George Voinovich (OH)]
Nelson and Lincoln (who also claims to be concerned about deficits) apparently don’t mind spending $3.1 trillion over the next ten years to pursue ineffective tax cuts for the wealthy. Perhaps they should have listened to their colleague, Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT), who said of DeMint’s proposal, “that’s not serious. Is that a stunt? Yes, it’s a stunt. Is it a gimmick? Yes, it’s a gimmick. Is it serious? No, it’s not serious.”
DeMint is particularly “not serious” when it comes to paying for his extraordinarily expensive amendments. Both came “with instructions to offset as necessary through spending reduction,” Senate-speak for “we’ll worry about the cost later.”
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
While calling for bipartisanship, McConnell says he’s not ‘very interested in doing things left of center.’
While calling for bipartisanship, McConnell says he’s not ‘very interested in doing things left of center.’
Today, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) sat down with a group of political reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. Despite leading the most obstructionist minority party in American history, McConnell attacked Democrats and the President for what he perceived as their lack of bipartisanship. The Kentucky senator then called for more bipartisanship, but in the very same breath, said he is not willing to give an inch to the left:
McCONNELL: If you have a big majority, what you want to do is pick off a Republican or two, give it the taint of bipartisanship and do what you want to do. If you’re between 55 and 45, you get genuine bipartisan agreement. And what I hope we’re going to have — and it will be up to the American people — but what I hope we’re going to have is more balance, more balance, which will give us opportunities to do things together, that simply are missing when you have this kind of disparity. But, I’m not going to be very interested in doing things left of center. It’s going to have to be center-right and I think the President is a flexible man and I’ll think he’ll become a born-again moderate.
Watch it: More »
Rick Scott ‘Discriminated Or Cut Corners In Pursuit Of Profit,’ According To Lawsuits He’s Keeping Confidential
Rick Scott ‘Discriminated Or Cut Corners In Pursuit Of Profit,’ According To Lawsuits He’s Keeping Confidential
Rick Scott, a disgraced ex-hospital executive and anti-health care reform propagandist is poised to be the Republican nominee for governor in Florida. Still, Scott is dogged by legal trouble. The Miami Herald reports today that Scott and his health care company are hiding details about nearly a dozen lawsuits against them, lawsuits which “portray the company, and sometimes Scott by extension, as a ruthless employer who discriminated or cut corners in pursuit of profit”:
Just six days before Rick Scott announced his bid for governor, he was deposed in a case that alleged his healthcare company Solantic had broken Florida law by filing false medical licensing information with the state.
But what Scott said April 7 might never be known to the public.
Within a month, Solantic settled the 2-year-old case and signed a confidentiality agreement with Dr. P. Mark Glencross, who claimed his medical license was misused by the Jacksonville-based chain of walk-in clinics. …
The Glencross lawsuit — along with nine other court actions filed against the company since 2001 in Duval County — tells a different story. Taken together, they portray the company, and sometimes Scott by extension, as a ruthless employer who discriminated or cut corners in pursuit of profit.
In all but one case, the plaintiffs, Scott and Solantic’s chief executive officer, Karen Bowling, said they could not talk about what happened because they had signed confidentiality agreements. Bowling said Solantic settled the cases at the behest of its insurance company, which found that protracted court fights were too expensive.
Between 2003 and 2005, “five Solantic employees and two job applicants claim that the company regularly discriminated against people who were overweight or minorities.”
Scott has a rough history with the law. Another company he led, Columbia Hospital Corporation/Hospital Corporation of America, pled guilty to fraud charges and paid a settlement of $1.7 billion — the largest in U.S. history — in 2000. “Columbia/HCA systematically defrauded taxpayers,” wrote Lee Fang on the Wonk Room, “charging Medicare $15,000 for Tiffany pitchers and other luxury goods, ‘exaggerating the seriousness of the illnesses they were treating,’ and engineering a program where doctors were granted partnerships in hospitals as a kickback for referring patients” when Scott was at the helm.
Of course, Scott’s record of health care fraud isn’t limited to his business behavior. When Congress was debating health care, he launched Conservatives for Patients Rights as an anti-reform front group, regurgitated discredited talking points in a 30-minute advocacy infomercial, and coordinated an obstruction strategy with industry lobbyists.
Florida’s Republican establishment is uneasy with a potential Scott nomination, and the state’s former governor Jeb Bush will try to boost Bill McCollum, Scott’s GOP rival, with “a statewide fly-around Monday, the first day of early voting.”
The Supreme Court will now have three women justices.
The Supreme Court will now have three women justices.
The Senate just confirmed Elena Kagan to be the next Supreme Court justice in a vote of 63-37. She will be the 112th justice and the fourth woman in history to serve on the court. The AP reports:
Five Republicans joined all but one Democrat and the Senate’s two independents to support Kagan. In a rarely practiced ritual reserved for the most historic votes, senators sat at their desks and stood to cast their votes with “ayes” and “nays.”
Target CEO apologizes to employees for donating to anti-gay candidate Tom Emmer.
Target CEO apologizes to employees for donating to anti-gay candidate Tom Emmer.
Target created a firestorm late last month by donating $150,000 to MN Forward, a “Republican-friendly political fund staffed by insiders from departing GOP Gov. Tim Pawlenty’s administration.” The most controversial part of this contribution was that MN Forward supports Minnesota gubernatorial candidate Tom Emmer (R), who is an outspoken opponent of rights for gay men and women — while Target often presents an LGBT-friendly image. Target came under intense pressure from its employees and customers, many of whom called for boycotts of the retail chain. Today, Target CEO Gregg Steinhafel apologized to his employees. From his letter:
I have heard from many of you, and our team members, over the past week regarding Target’s contribution to MN Forward, and I appreciate your engagement and candor, both of which clearly demonstrate your loyalty and passion for our company.
In situations like this, it is often difficult to find the right words, but I would like to respond with the same honesty you have shown me.
The intent of our political contribution to MN Forward was to support economic growth and job creation. While I firmly believe that a business climate conducive to growth is critical to our future, I realize our decision affected many of you in a way I did not anticipate, and for that I am genuinely sorry.
We remain fully committed to fostering an environment that supports and respects the rights and beliefs of all individuals. The diversity of our team is an important aspect of our unique culture and our success as a company, and we did not mean to disappoint you, our team or our valued guests.
Going forward, we will soon begin a strategic review and analysis of our decision-making process for financial contributions in the public policy arena. And later this fall, Target will take a leadership role in bringing together a group of companies and partner organizations for a dialogue focused on diversity and inclusion in the workplace, including GLBT issues.
Gingrich Now Pushing ‘No Lame Duck Pledge,’ Despite Using Lame Duck Session To Impeach Clinton
Gingrich Now Pushing ‘No Lame Duck Pledge,’ Despite Using Lame Duck Session To Impeach Clinton
As Congress heads into August recess, conservative pundits and GOP leaders are ginning up “a new rallying cry to energize voters: fear the lame duck!” “Playing to voter passions,” they are pitching the idea that, after losses in the November election, a “weakened Democratic majority might make one final stab” at “enshrining a liberal agenda” in a lame duck session of Congress. House Republican Study Committee Chairman Rep. Tom Price (R-GA) capitalized on these “dark warnings” last week by introducing a resolution “calling on Congress not to hold a lame duck session after Election Day.”
Now, former Republican House Speaker Newt Gingrich is contributing his heft to this GOP effort. In a Human Events op-ed yesterday, Gingrich promoted his new “No Lame Duck Pledge,” his petition to prevent Democrats from pushing an “unpopular and destructive” agenda and “thwart[ing] the will of the people”:
We need to get every elected representative on the record about whether they support or oppose a lame duck session after the election.
The Democrats have already proven with the healthcare bill that they are willing to use cheap tricks to thwart the will of the people. They ignored the town hall meetings and the clear signal the voters of Massachusetts sent by electing Scott Brown and passed the healthcare bill anyway.[...]
At American Solutions, we have developed the No Lame Duck Pledge:
I, undersigned Member of the 111th Congress, pledge to the citizens of the State of _____________ I will not participate in a Lame Duck session of Congress. I believe reconvening the Congress after the November 2nd election and prior to the seating of the new 112th Congress, smacks of the worst kind of political corruption. Attempting to pass unpopular legislation subverts the will of the American people and is an abusive power grab.
While Gingrich now claims that the lame duck is “at odds with the spirit of our democratic republic,” his own history undermines his feigned indignation. As Speaker of the House from 1995 to 1999, Gingrich led the charge to impeach President Clinton during the 1998 lame duck session following Republican election losses “attributed to their inquisition of the president.” Gingrich helped push through impeachment despite “the will of the people,” as a series of polls showed a consistent lack of public support for the entire impeachment effort.
While Gingrich and conservative pundits like Charles Krauthammer may claim that Democrats will “vote for anything” including card check, a value-added tax, and climate change legislation in a lame duck session, Mother Jones’s Kevin Drum points out that it would be impossible for Democrats to do so:
I’m just stonkered here. Don’t get me wrong: I’d be cheering from the sidelines if I thought Democrats could do any of this stuff. But the last time I looked, legislation still has to be passed by both the House and the Senate. And the Senate has only 59 Democrats, many of whom aren’t reliable votes in any kind of session, lame duck or otherwise. So as long as Republicans stick together — and they will — and continue to filibuster everything — and they will — nothing of any consequence will pass.
Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) reaffirmed that “Democrats aren’t interested in pushing through major bills” during the House lame duck session, insisting that “there’s no secret or overt plan to do something like that.”
Bush reportedly pushed back publication of his memoir until after the elections so GOP isn’t tarnished.
Bush reportedly pushed back publication of his memoir until after the elections so GOP isn’t tarnished.
Former President Bush has been working on a memoir about his tenure in the White House, titled “Decision Points,” that is scheduled to be released this fall. According to friends of the former president who spoke with the Financial Times, Bush insisted that the book’s release date be pushed back until after the November elections, apparently out of concern that the publication of a book dwelling on his deeply unpopular presidency could hurt Republicans at the polls:
According to friends of Mr Bush, he resisted plans by the publisher to launch the book in September, which is traditionally a better time to maximise sales.
His friends say that Mr Bush, whose two terms in office remain unpopular among most Americans, did not want to insert himself into the midterm election campaign, where Republicans are expected to make big gains. The book will be published on November 9, a week after the polls.
Indeed, former Bush speech writer Matt Latimer recently reported that Republicans have grown “increasingly anxious” about the impact of the memoir, with one unnamed insider calling the November publication date “[m]onumentally bad timing,” and another saying the book’s release is “selfish and stupid.” But even with the post-election publication date, “details of the book are certain to leak out earlier,” and Bush surrogates are “preparing to flood the airwaves in anticipation” of the release. The former president himself will break his long silence four days after the election, giving his first one-on-one TV interview to NBC’s Matt Lauer. Bush’s publisher denied that Bush asked for the release date to be postponed, saying, “The decision to publish in November was made by the president’s publisher.” (HT: Huffington Post)
REPORT: The GOP’s Agenda To Change The Constitution
REPORT: The GOP’s Agenda To Change The Constitution
Since President Obama took office, Republicans have shrouded their agenda of opposition by wrapping it in the flag and the Constitution. Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) even went so far as to label her radical anti-government views “constitutional conservatism.” Yet, for all of their constitutional pablum, the GOP’s agenda is nothing less than a direct assault on America’s founding document. Time and time again, Republicans have called for basic constitutional freedoms and fundamental aspects of our constitutional government to be repealed either by amendment or by activist judges:
REPEALING CITIZENSHIP: Numerous GOP lawmakers, including their Senate leader and the most-recent Republican candidate for president, are lining up behind a “review” of the 14th Amendment’s grant of citizenship to virtually all persons born within the United States. Such a proposal literally revives the vision of citizenship articulated by the Supreme Court’s infamous pro-slavery decision in Dred Scott v. Sanford. It has no place in the twenty-first century.
REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO REGULATE THE ECONOMY: The Constitution’s “Commerce Clause” gives national leaders broad authority to regulate the national economy, but much of the GOP has embraced “tentherism,” the belief that this power is small enough to be drowned in a bathtub. The most famous example of tentherism is the ubiquitous frivolous lawsuits claiming that health reform is unconstitutional, but these lawsuits are part of a much greater effort. In his brief challenging health reform, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli claims that Congress is allowed to regulate “commerce on one hand” but not “manufacturing or agriculture.” Cuccinelli’s discredited vision of the Constitution was actually implemented in the late 19th and early 20th century, and it would strike down everything from child labor laws to the federal ban on whites-only lunch counters.
REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO SPEND MONEY: The Constitution also gives Congress power to “provide for the common defense and general welfare,” a broad grant of authority to create federal spending programs such as Social Security. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), however, recently called upon the Supreme Court to rewrite the Constitution’s clear language and repeal parts of the budget he doesn’t like. A Texas GOP official even went so far as to claim that the federal highway system is unconstitutional. Should this GOP vision of the Constitution ever be adopted, it could eliminate not just Social Security, but also Medicare, Medicaid, federal education spending and countless other cherished programs.
REPEALING CONGRESS’ POWER TO RAISE MONEY: The Constitution also gives Congress broad authority to decide how to distribute the tax burden. Thus, for example, Congress is allowed to create a tax incentive for people to buy houses by giving a tax break to people with mortgages, and it is allowed to create a similar incentive for people to buy health insurance by taxing people who have health insurance slightly less than people who do not. Nevertheless, the frivolous assaults on health reform would eliminate this Constitutional power. Many Tea Party Republicans go even further, calling for a full repeal of the 16th Amendment, the amendment which enables the income tax. Paying taxes is never popular, but it would be impossible to function as a nation if America lacked the power to raise the money it needs to pay our armed forces, among other things.
REPEALING EQUALITY: The Constitution entitles all persons to “equal protection of the laws,” a provision that formed the basis of Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision yesterday that California cannot treat gay couples as if they are somehow inferior. Immediately after this decision was announced, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) called upon Congress to “act immediately” to overturn it — something that it could only do through a constitutional amendment. Of course, Newt’s proposal does nothing more than revive President Bush’s call for a constitutional amendment repealing the parts of the Constitution that protect marriage equality.
REPEALING FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: As Judge Walker also held, marriage is a fundamental right protected by the Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The GOP’s anti-gay amendment would repeal this constitutional protection as well.
REPEALING ELECTION OF SENATORS: Finally, a number of GOP candidates have come out in favor of repealing the 17th Amendment, the provision of the Constitution which requires direct election of senators, although many of these candidates also backed off their “Seventeenther” stand after it proved embarrassing. It is simply baffling how anyone could take one look at the U.S. Senate, and decide that what it really needs is even less democracy.
Pat Buchanan suggests Judge Walker struck down Proposition 8 because he is gay.
Pat Buchanan suggests Judge Walker struck down Proposition 8 because he is gay.
Last night, after U.S. District Chief Judge Vaughn Walker ruled that denying gays and lesbians the right to marry violated the Due Process and Equal Protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution, supporters of Proposition 8 expressed disappointment and pledged to appeal the decision all the way up to the Supreme Court. Some conservative activists lashed out against Judge Walker, using his sexual orientation to dismiss the decision altogether. This morning, MSNBC commentator Pat Buchanan argued that same-sex marriage was unnatural and suggested that Walker ruled against Proposition 8 because he is gay:
BUCHANAN: It is unnatural…an older white guy handed down the decision and he happened to be gay. That might have had something to do with it.
Watch it:
The Wonk Room has a list of conservatives using Walker’s sexual orientation as an excuse and explains the irony behind the allegation.
Boehner derides police officers and teachers as ‘special interests.’
Boehner derides police officers and teachers as ‘special interests.’
Yesterday, the Senate finally overcame a Republican filibuster to approve $26 billion in funding to bolster state budgets, including $10 billion to prevent massive teacher layoffs. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has announced that she will interrupt the House’s August recess in order to hold a session to pass the bill, instead of waiting to pass it in September. But House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) slammed Pelosi’s decision to call the House back into session, calling the funding a “payoff to union bosses and liberal special interests”:
The American people don’t want more Washington ‘stimulus’ spending – especially in the form of a pay-off to union bosses and liberal special interests. This stunning display of tone-deafness comes at the expense of American workers, who will be hit by another job-killing tax hike because Washington Democrats can’t kick their addiction to more government ‘stimulus’ spending. Democrats should be listening to their constituents – who are asking ‘where are the jobs?’ – instead of scampering back to Washington to push through more special interest bailouts and job-killing tax hikes.
As the Wonk Room explained, this bill is deficit neutral, so there is no “tax hike” necessary. But more importantly, does Boehner really consider teachers, firefighters, and police officers “special interests”? Overall, the funding will save the jobs of about 300,000 workers, including about 140,000 school employees, and according to the Department of Education, 5,000 teaching jobs in Boehner’s home state of Ohio will be preserved.
Despite touting the 14th amendment on GOP.com, RNC says it’s open to repealing parts of it.
Despite touting the 14th amendment on GOP.com, RNC says it’s open to repealing parts of it.
On its website, the Republican National Committee proudly boasts of the GOP’s role in passing the 14th amendment in 1866. “The original purpose of the 14th Amendment was to defend African-Americans from their Democrat oppressors in the post-Civil War South,” the site states. Now, however, the RNC says it’s open to repealing the portion of the 14th amendment that allows anyone born in the U.S. to automatically become a U.S. citizen. Politico reports:
Doug Heye, a spokesman for the RNC, said there’s nothing contradictory about wanting to alter the amendment.
“Passing it was a huge issue and beside the point of what’s happening today. In 2010, we know that birthright citizenship is potentially being abused,” Heye said. “Supporting an idea and being critical of that idea being abused are not mutually exclusive.”
A senior GOP aide added: “The question is whether foreign nationals intentionally having children here to claim benefits and access to the country is a small exception or a larger problem that we see in illegal immigration as well as tourist visas. If it is a large problem then ignoring the debate because we’ve never had it before is pretty foolish. It really is a vexing policy question.”
In today’s Washington Post, columnist E.J. Dionne chastises Republicans by endangering their “party’s greatest political legacy by turning the 14th Amendment to our Constitution into an excuse for election-year ugliness.” He points to Sen. Lindsey Graham’s (R-SC) claim that immigrants come to the U.S. to “drop a child” in order to “anchor” themselves to the country and asks, “Drop a child? How can a strong believer in the right to life use such a phrase?”
ThinkFast: August 5, 2010
ThinkFast: August 5, 2010
After a federal judge struck down California’s ban on same-sex- marriage yesterday, the White House issued a statement explaining that President Obama “has spoken out in opposition to Proposition 8 because it is divisive and discriminatory” and “will continue to promote equality for LGBT Americans.” But gay marriage advocates note that Obama “has not been clear is how he squares his position for equality with his refusal to embrace actual equality in marriage.”
40.8 million: Record number of Americans who received food stamps in May. Recipients of the subsidies “jumped 19 percent from a year earlier and increased 0.9 percent from April,” and participation has “set records for 18 straight months.”
Contrary to several media reports, Kentucky U.S. Senate candidate Rand Paul (R) never “received a bachelor’s degree from Baylor University.” Paul left Baylor “early when Duke accepted him in its School of Medicine.” The Paul campaign said it never corrected the record because it was “not aware of the erroneous claim.”
Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK) “has blocked the nomination of James Clapper to be director of national intelligence,” just days after Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) lifted his own hold on the retired Air Force lieutenant general. Coburn’s office would not explain the hold, but it may involve the administration’s plan to close the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Yesterday during a speech at the Center for American Progress, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner criticized the GOP talking point that allowing the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy to expire will hurt small businesses. The Republican claim is “a political argument masquerading as substance,” he said. Geithner also noted that letting the cuts expire would affect fewer than 3 percent of small businesses.
Flashback: George Washington in 1790 — The U.S. government ‘gives to bigotry no sanction.’
Flashback: George Washington in 1790 — The U.S. government ‘gives to bigotry no sanction.’
In 1790, President George Washington wrote a letter to the Jewish community of Newport, Rhode Island, affirming the values of tolerance and religious freedom that he saw as the bedrock of the country that he had had helped found, and done so much to secure. “The Citizens of the United States of America have a right to applaud themselves for giving to Mankind examples of an enlarged and liberal policy,” Washington wrote, “a policy worthy of imitation.” He continued:
All possess alike liberty of conscience and immunities of citizenship. It is now no more that toleration is spoken of, as if it was by the indulgence of one class of people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that they who live under its protection, should demean themselves as good citizens. [...]
May the Children of the Stock of Abraham, who dwell in this land, continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other Inhabitants; while every one shall sit under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.
The debate over the Ground Zero Mosque is, in fact, a debate over American values. Newt Gingrich has been trying to claim that the construction of the mosque is “explicitly at odds with core American and Western values,” while Mayor Bloomberg correctly noted yesterday that “we would betray our values if we were to treat Muslims differently than anyone else.” If the conservatives who have been attacking the mosque think that George Washington was wrong about American tolerance and religious freedom, let them say so explicitly.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll