Tea Partier Rep. Mike Pence’s first act in Congress is to go after Abortion rights
January 26, 2011 No CommentMany of the religious right are members of the Tea Party and for anyone that thought their anti- choice agenda was taking a back seat to their free markets/anti-government stance was not paying attention. Mike Pence, who is being groomed as a leader of the Tea Party movement, wasted no time in rewarding his base. After preaching for two years about jobs and deficit reduction, House Republicans have chosen to ignore both with their first big initiatives in the majority — the symbolic repeal of health care reform and the ” No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act .” Yesterday, while addressing the March for Life in Washington, D.C., Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) had a message for critics of the decision to push an anti-abortion bill before tackling job creation: PENCE: These are trying times in the life of this nation. Our economy is struggling and our national government is awash in a sea of debt. Amidst these struggles, some would have us focus our energies on jobs and spending. We must not remain silent when great moral battles are being waged. Those who would have us ignore the battle being fought over life have forgotten the lessons of history. As in the days of a house divided, America’s darkest moments have come when economic arguments trumped moral principles. Pence commented that some people would rather Congress focus on economic issues, but he failed to mention that he was one of those people when Democrats held power. For instance, Pence declared in September that creating jobs “has to be the first priority and I believe will be the first priority if Republicans are given another opportunity to lead.” I also believe that it will be imperative that the new congress focus just as much energy on getting our economy moving again, making sure that in the city and on the farm, Americans have more of their own hard-earned resources to invest in ways that will create jobs, so putting our fiscal house in order, creating policies that will open the doors of opportunity to families during this difficult economy and create jobs has to be the first priority and I believe will be the first priority if Republicans are given another opportunity to lead. Similarly, in December 2009, Pence stated that ” jobs are the number one priority of the American people , and should be the number one priority of this Congress.” Like Pence, a number of leading Republicans have attacked President Obama and congressional Democrats for attempting to deal with health care — which is also a moral issue — instead of focusing all of their energy on job creation directly. I get the creeps every time I see this smug crackpot go on TV, but he knows where he lays his hat. See, Pence reveals that your jobs are really meaningless even though that’s the persona he wants you to believe.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) explained Wednesday that Republicans would be happy to work with President Barack Obama on “the really serious, seemingly intractable problems” as longer as he agreed to do things their way. “If the president is willing to do what I and my members would do anyway, we’re not going to say no,” McConnell said at a breakfast hosted by Politico’s Mike Allen. “But that’s not much of a concession,” Allen noted. “That’s not bargaining, to just give you what you want.” “I like to think I’m a pretty good negotiator,” McConnell replied. The Minority Leader’s Wednesday remarks echoed comments he made after big Republican wins in November. “If the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction,” he said following the midterm elections. In October, McConnell told the National Journal that “[t]he single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.”
Continue reading …
Despite the Egyptian government’s forceful response—including mass arrests, a ban on protests and the use of batons and tear gas—to demonstrations around the country against President Hosni Mubarak’s administration, the clashes continued Wednesday between police and protesters, although on a smaller scale than the day before.
Continue reading …President Obama threaded a tight needle of bipartisanship in his SOTU address last night, but he slipped in a few chewable moments for progressives too. One of them was almost a throwaway. I nearly missed it and had to go back to the text to make sure I heard right. At the California Institute of Technology, they’re developing a way to turn sunlight and water into fuel for our cars. At Oak Ridge National Laboratory, they’re using supercomputers to get a lot more power out of our nuclear facilities. With more research and incentives, we can break our dependence on oil with biofuels, and become the first country to have 1 million electric vehicles on the road by 2015. We need to get behind this innovation. And to help pay for it, I’m asking Congress to eliminate the billions in taxpayer dollars we currently give to oil companies. I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but they’re doing just fine on their own. So instead of subsidizing yesterday’s energy, let’s invest in tomorrow’s. The American Petroleum Institute is disappointed. They’re the folks who ran all of those “Energy Tomorrow” ads last year when there was still a sliver of a chance for the cap and trade bill to get through the Senate, as you might recall. Their statement : American Petroleum Institute President Jack Gerard, who had lobbied the White House in advance for Obama to promote the economic virtues of expanding oil drilling, said Obama missed an opportunity to highlight real job creation and economic recovery opportunities.” I’d call that a slap in the face of oil companies. A pretty hard one, at that. Oil subsidies have a long history and just about every Democratic president has tried to end them, to no avail. I have my doubts that this one will, but by naming this specific subsidy, the president put Republicans into the position of having to be overt in defending their masters in something unpopular with most Americans, or come up with another way to handle investments in the clean energy sectors. In his book Griftopia , Matt Taibbi deconstructs the myth that high oil prices are tied to consumption or to anything ordinary people can control: But it wasn’t the consumption of real oil that was driving up prices — it was the trade in paper oil. By the summer of 2008, in fact, commodities speculators had bought and stockpiled enough oil futures to fill 1.1 billion barrels of crude, which meant that speculators owned more future oil on paper than there was real, physical oil stored in all of the country’s commercial storage tanks and the Strategic Petroleum Reserve combined. It was a repeat of both the Internet craze and the housing bubble, when Wall Street jacked up present-day profits by selling suckers shares of a fictional fantasy future of endlessly rising prices. In what was by now a painfully familiar pattern, the oil-commodities melon hit the pavement hard in the summer of 2008, causing a massive loss of wealth; crude prices plunged from $147 to $33. Once again the big losers were ordinary people. The pensioners whose funds invested in this crap got massacred: CalPERS, the California Public Employees’ Retirement System, had $1.1 billion in commodities when the crash came. And the damage didn’t just come from oil. Soaring food prices driven by the commodities bubble led to catastrophes across the planet, forcing an estimated 100 million people into hunger and sparking food riots throughout the Third World. Now oil prices are rising again: They shot up 20 percent in the month of May and have nearly doubled so far this year. Once again, the problem is not supply or demand. “The highest supply of oil in the last 20 years is now,” says Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat from Michigan who serves on the House energy committee. “Demand is at a 10-year low. And yet prices are up.” It’s interesting to me that this point-by-point rebuttal to Taibbi’s arguments doesn’t question the accuracy of what happened. It only questions whether the real cause of the price spike and crash was related more to a weak dollar than creating a demand in a commodities market by flooding it with pension cash. It seems pretty clear to me that the President is right to push on oil companies with what little leverage he has. By eliminating Big Oil’s tax subsidies, billions in revenue is recovered to invest in more efficient and better energy sources for the planet. The Koch brothers will hate it, and Republicans will defend it, which allows us the luxury of tying them all together in a big bow. Yes, I’d say that particular piece of the SOTU was a big fat middle finger to President Obama’s biggest detractors, and something we should support and pressure Republicans to deliver now that they’re in charge.
Continue reading …Prior to President Obama's State of the Union address Tuesday night, CBS Evening News anchor Katie Couric wondered what the message of the midterm elections was, to which political analyst Jeff Greenfield replied: “You've got 87 new members of the House, many of whom are fired up with a kind of militancy we very rarely see, even among new members.” Greenfield went to proclaim: “One of the things Obama politically is going to try to do – not just tonight but over the next year – is to separate out the middle from what he will try to paint as a much too ideological Republican majority.” He then used the “militant” label a second time in describing tensions between new Tea Party members and Republican leadership: “It's also going to be a lot of pressure on new Speaker – the new House Speaker John Boehner. I mean, there's a tension between John Boehner and the more militant Tea Party folks.” Moments later, Couric turned to Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer and fretted: “And how serious, Bob Schieffer, do you see this chasm developing? I mean, how big a problem will this pose for the GOP?” Schieffer declared: “It is a problem. And, I mean, the fact that the Republican leadership is letting Michele Bachmann make a second response here just underlines that….they're afraid to tell her not to, because they know how powerful these Tea Party people were and the power they had in the last election.” Here is a transcript of the January 25 exchange: 9:06PM ET KATIE COURIC: You know, Jeff, a lot of people are saying the real battle is how the recent midterm elections should be interpreted. Republicans say voters wanted less government, they didn't want government-run health care. And the White House claims they just didn't like partisan politics and they wanted both sides to work together. What do you think the message of the midterms was? JEFF GREENFIELD: Because different people can interpret those differently, one of the most important things we're going to see is how the Republicans interpret it when they start to govern. You've got 87 new members of the House, many of whom are fired up with a kind of militancy we very rarely see, even among new members. They really believe they were elected to put a firm immediate halt on spending and one of the things Obama politically is going to try to do – not just tonight but over the next year – is to separate out the middle from what he will try to paint as a much too ideological Republican majority. It's also going to be a lot of pressure on new Speaker – the new House Speaker John Boehner. I mean, there's a tension between John Boehner and the more militant Tea Party folks. That may be the best political story this season. COURIC: And, in fact, John Dickerson, how is that shaking out? We all talked about after the midterm results how these two, basically, sides of the Republican Party were going to be integrated once this new congress was convened. What have you seen happen? How has it all sort of turned out so far? JOHN DICKERSON: Well, it's a shaky business so far and the shakiness comes, we see it tonight. Congressman Paul Ryan, who will give the official Republican response, and then Congresswoman Michele Bachmann will give another sort of Tea Party response. And the difference there, essentially, is between governing – which is what Ryan has to do, put together a budget, listen to all of the input and voices – and Michele Bachmann who's doing a little bit something closer to campaigning. And the mix there and how they find that mix, how they keep all of those promises they made, but still get enough votes to actually pass something that could even make it to the President's desk. That's the tension and they're still working that out and they're working it out in public. COURIC: And how serious, Bob Schieffer, do you see this chasm developing? I mean, how big a problem will this pose for the GOP? BOB SCHIEFFER: It is a problem. And, I mean, the fact that the Republican leadership is letting Michele Bachmann make a second response here just underlines that. I mean, my heavens, can you imagine what Sam Rayburn, when he was Speaker of the House, would have done if one of his members had said 'Oh, by the way, I'm going to make a response, too'? Or Lyndon Johnson, when he was the leader of the Senate? They're letting her make this speech because they're afraid to tell her not to, because they know how powerful these Tea Party people were and the power they had in the last election.
Continue reading …
Is Chicago heavy hitting mayoral hopeful Rahm Emanuel legit? Well, at least in the sense that he qualifies to run for mayor, given the residency requirements he believes certain prized items of clothing could have fulfilled in his physical absence. Related Entries January 26, 2011 9 Out of 10 Viewers Approve of Obama’s Proposals January 26, 2011 Hogwash, Mr. President
Continue reading …
Here are two words that ought to strike fear into the hearts of many Americans: President Bachmann. While it’s definitely a longshot, and she’d be up against none other than Sarah Palin, Rep. Michele Bachmann could have been positioning herself to represent the tea party movement in a bigger way than just her response to Obama’s State of the Union address on Tuesday night. John Nichols faces this alarming prospect, and critiques Bachmann’s speech, in his column for The Nation on Wednesday. John Nichols in The Nation: On style points and substance, Bachmann was shaky. At times, she seemed to be struggling to figure out which camera she was talking to. (Memo to SNL writers: Bachmann’s bumbles beat Palin’s anyday.) Nothing about her ramble through the standard talking points of the Republican right was going to appeal to wavering independents. And Democrats who tuned in for laughs and shock appeal. But the Tea Party base, which is a real force in the Republican Party now, got just what it wanted: wild ruminations about assaults on the Constitution, “Obamacare” and “job-killing” weatherization programs. Bachmann didn’t suggest that Obama was born in Indonesia, or that the president might be turning the White House into a Marxist reeducation camp. She didn’t need to. She was the champion of the edgy activists who actually show up at Iowa precinct caucuses on mid-winter nights, and she was sharing the national platform on State of the Union night. At NPR’s website, the headline read: “Transcripts And Audio: Obama, Ryan, Bachmann.” Obama, Ryan and not Sarah Palin. Obama, Ryan and Michelle Bachmann. With Palin’s star tarnished, Bachmann was exactly where she wanted – and needed – to be on the night that in so many senses the 2012 presidential race was beginning. Read more Related Entries January 25, 2011 Egyptian Protesters Rail Against Mubarak’s Regime January 24, 2011 Where Liberals Go to Feel Good
Continue reading …Darrell Issa blocks Elijah Cummings’ opening statement that would have criticized J.P. Morgan’s role in the foreclosure debacle
January 26, 2011 No Comment(In the above video, Ryan Lizza discusses Issa’s very checkered past) Darrell ” The Arsonist ” Issa already has tarred his committee’s hearing process when he wouldn’t allow the ranking Democrat to make his opening statement because it was aimed at JPMorgan Chase’s role in the foreclosure fraud. Ryan Grimm: House Oversight Chairman Darrell Issa’s investigation into the foreclosure crisis is off to a rough start. On Wednesday, the ranking Democrat on the oversight panel, Elijah Cummings (Md.), planned to use his opening statement to charge Issa with blocking the summoning of a witness from JPMorgan Chase to explain the bank’s role in alleged foreclosure fraud. Cummings never got the chance. In a move that diverged radically from congressional custom, Issa (Calif.) refused to allow the ranking Democrat to offer his statement , deciding instead to bar all opening statements from the assembled committee members, himself included. “I know the tradition is that we hold the witnesses here for sometimes an hour through opening statements,” Issa said Wednesday. “That is a tradition that I intend to break.” On Tuesday, at the organizational meeting to prepare for the hearing, Cummings had expressed concern that he might be barred from speaking. “Will you give me notice when you and I are not going to speak. I don’t want to staff to spend all night preparing a memorable opening statement and then we don’t get to give it,” he said, according to a transcript of the meeting. If anyone thinks Issa is actually going to hold any investigations that will help the American people, then they are really naive. I’ll just leave it at that. Susie already discussed Issa’s criminal history. Fleshing out the details, here’s Ryan Lizza’s pretty in-depth piece in the New Yorker on Issa. It’s really worth a read: “Don’t Look Back…Darrell Issa, the congressman about to make life more difficult for President Obama, has had some troubles of his own.” He’s been convicted of gun charges, been indicted for grand theft auto and has been accused of burning down his own business. Nice. Arson Issa was also the man who basically funded the recall of California’s Gov. Gray Davis so he could become the governor, but abruptly dropped out when Arnold dropped in back in 2003. A day after Arnold Schwarzenegger declared he was running, the man who bankrolled the effort to recall Gov. Gray Davis abruptly quit the gubernatorial race Thursday and the state Supreme Court swept aside lawsuits that could have delayed the Oct. 7 vote. — Issa’s announcement earlier in the day came as a surprise because the congressman who made his fortune selling car alarms was one of the first to announce his intention to run and had spent $1.7 million of his own money on the effort. Bob Mulholland, spokesman for the California Democratic Party, immediately labeled Issa “the arsonist who fled the scene of the fire.” “He didn’t stick around to watch the fire, but he’s created a mess — $1.7 million for his own political ambition and now he’s fleeing the scene,” Mulholland said. Issa had been one of Davis’ most vocal critics, saying he misled voters during last year’s governor’s race about the size of the state budget deficit, which ballooned to $38 billion. The 49-year-old businessman said he had been repeatedly pounded for minor scrapes with the law that date back to two arrests in 1972 on weapons charges in Ohio and Michigan. One resulted in a $100 fine; the other was dropped. And Issa left the race in Boehneresque fashion — he cried: .
Continue reading …Fox News’ Megyn Kelly claimed last week that her network doesn’t use Nazi references. Since that’s just flat out wrong, the ball was in Jon Stewart’s court to call her out. Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) had made a speech on the House floor last week comparing a Republican plan to repeal health care reform to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. In an interview with Kelly, Democratic strategist Richard Socarides pointed out that Cohen wasn’t the only one to invoke Nazis. “If we want to get into who is heating this and overheating this, I mean every night on the very network we’re on right now, the leading commentators on this network use this kind of language,” he explained. “That’s not true, Richard,” Kelly shot back. “I don’t know if you sit and watch our programming every night, but I watch it every day, and you’re wrong.” “Megyn, I watch it every day, too,” Stewart noted. “12 long years. I think he might be right.” Comedy Central’s staff quickly produced clip after clip to prove that Kelly was the one who was wrong. “If you look back at what happened in Germany you cannot escape the similarities between what Hitler and his cut throats did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they’re doing now,” Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly said in Feb. 2008. “There is an Obama supporter, he’s got this book and this video out that are propaganda pieces,” Fox News’ Glenn Beck said in March 2010. “And I’m telling you, they would make Joseph Goebbels proud.” “The far left in this country, the zealots — I mean these are zealots — are Nazis,” O’Reilly said in another clip. In all, Stewart found about ten clips of with Nazi references. One example was even on Kelly’s show. “Well, true believers always make me a little nervous,” Bernie Goldberg told Kelly in a segment about anti-war protesters Code Pink. “I am not calling these people Nazis. I want to make that clear, but they are not behaving like liberals. They are behaving like brown-shirted thugs.” “Aha!” shouted Stewart. “I’m not saying they’re Nazis. I’m saying they are behaving like the soldiers Hitler used. Aha! Well, Ms. Kelly, don’t you look ridiculous now?”
Continue reading …Report: Bipartisan Panel To Refer Some Banking Industry Figures For Potential Prosecution
January 26, 2011 No CommentImagine, it was so bad , even the Obama administration knows they have to pursue charges. I imagine at least a few of the guilty parties were the ones who ran to the White House, pleading the case for banker bonuses: The bipartisan panel appointed by Congress to investigate the financial crisis has concluded that several financial industry figures appear to have broken the law and has referred multiple cases to state or federal authorities for potential prosecution, according to two sources directly involved in the deliberations. The sources, who spoke on condition they not be named, declined to identify the people implicated or the names of their institutions. But they characterized the panel’s decision to make referrals to prosecutors as a significant escalation in the government’s response to the financial crisi s. The panel plans to release its final report in Washington on Thursday morning. In the three years since major lenders teetered on the brink of collapse, prompting huge taxpayer rescues and amplifying an already painful recession into the most punishing downturn since the Depression, public indignation has swelled while few people who played prominent roles in the crisis have faced legal consequences. That may be about to change. According to the law that created the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, the panel has a responsibility to refer for prosecution any evidence of lawbreaking . The offices that have received the referrals — the Justice Department, state attorneys general, and perhaps both — must now determine whether to prosecute cases and, if so, whether to pursue criminal or civil charges. Though civil charges appear a more likely outcome should prosecution result, one source familiar with the panel’s deliberations said criminal charges should not be ruled out. The commission’s decision to refer conduct for prosecution underscores the severity of the activities it has uncovered and plans to detail in its widely anticipated final report, the sources said. The Wall Street Journal, of course, puts all the blame on government regulators.
Continue reading …