Home » Posts tagged with » house (Page 20)

Democrats were of course relieved by Obama’s proposed deficit reduction plan, since they were concerned about him taking down the party with cuts to Medicare and Social Security. But they know it’s only an opening gambit, one that’s unlikely to be accepted by House Republicans — and the real power now shifts to the Super Committee. The president, after all, is only promising to veto their agreement if they decide to cut Medicare without raising taxes on the wealthy . That’s an opening you could drive a Mack truck through, and it’s difficult to trust the man who played the public option shell game: Even those who have traditionally urged moderation from Democratic politicians were complimentary about — if not a touch emboldened by — the president’s new tone. “It was an effective opening bid,” said Matt Bennett, Senior Vice President for Public Affairs at the centrist-Democratic think tank Third Way. “He definitely planted a flag in the ground. He definitely communicated to his base and it was an opening bid in what is going to be a long negotiation.” The tone of an opening bid may, of course, change after a period of high-stakes negotiations. And while Bennett may be willing to stomach the compromise that will inevitably be struck, others were more nervous. The president’s initial proposal, for example, leaves Social Security alone while calling for $240 billion in Medicare savings, including means-testing for additional areas of the program. Dean qualified such reforms as “not at all disabling,” but other liberals saw a window opened. “We don’t feel like we can rest,” said Nancy Altman, co-director of Social Security Works. “But from where we started … this is a major improvement. We want to push him a little bit further so he really understands that Social Security is a pension plan and that it is not simply a negotiating tactic.” Clouding the response to Obama’s debt reduction plan is the recollection that not too long ago, he offered Boehner a deal that would have changed Social Security’s payment structure while raising the eligibility age for Medicare. Senior administration officials explained that those provisions weren’t included in the current proposal because this plan reflects “his vision, and not a legislative compromise being crafted to garner some number of votes in the House and the Senate.” But implicit in that statement is the recognition that Obama would be willing to make the same deal again, provided it could move a bill through Congress. And yet, the political landscape now is drastically different than the one that existed during the peak of the debt ceiling negotiations. And it seems likely to change even further. Mike Lux, a progressive strategist who has been critical of the administration in the past (despite working for the president during his transition to the White House) argued that progressive groups have and continue to create “a magnetic pole … that Obama is starting to move to.” As the election nears, Lux and others argue, political realities will only further compel the president to both campaign on raising tax rates on very wealthy Americans and speak out against deep cuts to popular entitlement programs.

Continue reading …
Afghanistan peace council head killed – live updates

• Former president and peace envoy killed in bomb blast • Hopes of settlement in tatters after assassination • Hamid Karzai to fly home from UN summit 5.12pm: Rabbani occupied a prominent position on the world stage for decades. These photographs- from 1980, 1988 and 2001- trace his career. Jon Boone, in Kabul, said Rabbani was meeting two insurgents, in his role as head of the high peace council, when he was killed by a suicide bomb: In a phone call from Kabul , Boone said: There were two insurgents in there and it hasn’t been confirmed whether one or both of those insurgents were responsible for the blast but from the witnesses, or bystanders, who were not too far from the building it’s most likely that the blast came from within rather than outside the building. He said suspicion is likely to fall on the Haqqani network, which is based in Pakistan. They have been fingered for most of the recent serious attacks in Kabul. They are the ones the US government have consistently said are the closest to the Pakistani military. It is thought by most analysts that the Pakistanis want to have a high degree of control and influence over peace talks. On the consequences for Afghan politics and the prospects of a peace deal, he says: It potentially or almost certainly blows Hamid Karzai’s entire peace agenda out of the water. Lots of analysts have argued that he [Karzai] isn’t really sincere about peace, maybe by appointing Rabbani who actually is very controversial, not particularly liked by the insurgents [and] maybe wasn’t particularly serious in the first place. Nonetheless this is what Karzai has invested in very heavily over the past 18 months. [The] second issue is this man Rabbani was an extremely important figure amongst northern non-Pashtun, and in general, anti-Taliban Afghans. Now these people are crucial. Their buy-in is vital if there’s ever going to be a successful peace deal. Now the insurgents, we don’t know which particular group, have taken out one of their great leaders….so I think this is going to play havoc with Afghan politics. 4.44pm: The Guardian’s Jon Boone has this latest update on this afternoon’s dramatic events. The assassination of Rabbani has dealt a huge blow to hopes that the war in Afghanistan might end through a negotiated settlement, he writes: Such an apparently deliberate attack on a still-embryonic peace process that has created tensions within Afghanistan and between its neighbours is likely to tip the country further into political crisis. 4.18pm: Hamid Karzai’s office has said the President will fly back from the United Nationals General Assembly in New York soon. 4.15pm: A quick update from Jon Boone: Outside the military hospital close to the scene of the attack, Habibulllah, a distraught close friend of Rabbani, tells The Guardian that the former president was killed by a suicide bomber who concealed the explosives under his turban. 4.07pm: The Guardian’s correspondent in Kabul, Jon Boone, has just called the phone of Masoom Stanekzai, the senior High Peace Council official also wounded in today’s attack. He writes: The man who answered would not reveal his name, but said that although Stanekzai has a serious leg injury he was well enough to speak on the phone to Hamid Karzai, who is currently in New York. The man said he was certain that a suicide bomber was responsible, but it was not yet clear whether the culprit was one of the Taliban guests Rabbani had been holding talks with in his house. 4.00pm: The New York Times met and spoke with Rabbani in January 2002, shortly after Hamid Karzai became Afghanistan’s interim president. Here’s the result of the encounter, which gives an intriguing flavour of Rabbani’s life as an elder statesman. In it, journalist Amy Waldman writes that the transfer of power to Karzai had been orderly, but awkward: Mr. Rabbani had no formal post to retreat to and no portfolio to preside over. It seemed unclear exactly what he would do. All is now clear: he will continue to act much like Afghanistan’s president. He has a security entourage larger than former President Bill Clinton’s. He lives in the presidential compound, in a large quasi-modernist house called Castle No. 1. His guards control the compound, and have sometimes seemed uninterested in ensuring that visitors also see Mr. Karzai. And all day long, a stone’s throw from the seat of the interim government, Mr. Rabbani receives visitors from all over the country coming to pay their respects, or seek advice or ask him to press their case with officials he appointed. With the transfer of power, Mr. Rabbani said in an interview at Castle No. 1 last night, he thought he would have fewer commitments than before. Instead he finds that he is busier than ever. 3.52pm: Reuters are reporting that a senior advisor to Hamid Karzai, the Afghan president, was also caught up in the blast that killed Rabbani. A senior police source is quoted as saying: Masoom Stanekzai is alive but badly wounded. 3.37pm: The head of Afghanistan’s high peace council, former President Burhanuddin Rabbani, has been killed in Kabul, a senior police officer said. His death is another blow to the security situation in Kabul, coming just a week after a 20-hour seige in Kabul’s heavily diplomatic enclave . Rabbani lived in the so-called green zone. It was Rabbani’s task to try to to negotiate a political end to the war. However, the peace council had made little headway since it was formed a year ago. He was president of the Afghan government that preceded the Taliban, having been leader of a powerful mujahideen party during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan in the 1980. After he was driven from Kabul in 1996, he became the nominal head of the Northern Alliance, mostly minority Tajiks and Uzbeks, who swept to power in Kabul after the Taliban’s fall. Rabbani is an ethnic Tajik. “Rabbani has been martyred,” Mohammed Zahir, head of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Kabul Police, told Reuters. He had no further details. Afghanistan Taliban Lizzy Davies Haroon Siddique guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
NYT’s Joe Nocera: Republicans Will Poison Your Hamburger

New York Times columnist Joe Nocera last made headlines for his August 2 rant comparing the Tea Party to terrorists . He later apologized in print. Now he's accusing the congressional G.O.P. of food terrorism. Nocera preemptively blamed Republicans in Congress for the next E.coli outbreak in his Saturday column, “ Killing Jobs And Making Us Sick .”

Continue reading …
Burhanuddin Rabbani killing plunges Afghanistan peace effort into crisis

Bomb rips through Kabul home of former president appointed by Karzai to begin negotiations with Taliban Hopes of ending the war in Afghanistan through a negotiated settlement appeared in tatters on Tuesday after insurgents assassinated Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani, a former president of Afghanistan appointed by Hamid Karzai to begin peace talks with the Taliban. At around 6pm local time a bomb ripped through Rabbani’s house in the heart of Kabul’s diplomatic district, just a stone’s throw from the US embassy which was attacked by militants last week. Sources close to Rabbani said the former president died in the explosion and Masoom Stanekzai, another key official in charge of Karzai’s reconciliation strategy, was seriously injured. Such an apparently deliberate attack on a still-embryonic peace process that has created tensions within Afghanistan and between its neighbours is likely to tip the country further into political crisis. Unconfirmed reports indicated that the two men were holding a meeting with a pair of insurgents to discuss peace plans. That raises the possibility that one of the insurgents could have been the bomber. Mohammad Aslam, a baker whose shop is just down the road from the house, said he thought the blast came from within the house as the sound of the explosion was “extremely weak”. Rabbani, who was chairman of the High Peace Council which was set up by Karzai last year to develop a framework for peace, regularly held meetings with insurgents on either side of the Afghan-Pakistani border. A Tajik and former warlord from northern Afghanistan who fought against the Taliban, he was a controversial choice. Although many analysts argued that the Taliban would never take a man with his history seriously, his appointment was also designed to appease northern, non-Pashtun Afghans who were deeply suspicious of any peace deals. Rabbani’s death is likely to embolden those opposition figures who are most strongly opposed to a peace talks with insurgents. Afghanistan Hamid Karzai Taliban Jon Boone guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Burhanuddin Rabbani killing plunges Afghanistan peace effort into crisis

Bomb rips through Kabul home of former president appointed by Karzai to begin negotiations with Taliban Hopes of ending the war in Afghanistan through a negotiated settlement appeared in tatters on Tuesday after insurgents assassinated Professor Burhanuddin Rabbani, a former president of Afghanistan appointed by Hamid Karzai to begin peace talks with the Taliban. At around 6pm local time a bomb ripped through Rabbani’s house in the heart of Kabul’s diplomatic district, just a stone’s throw from the US embassy which was attacked by militants last week. Sources close to Rabbani said the former president died in the explosion and Masoom Stanekzai, another key official in charge of Karzai’s reconciliation strategy, was seriously injured. Such an apparently deliberate attack on a still-embryonic peace process that has created tensions within Afghanistan and between its neighbours is likely to tip the country further into political crisis. Unconfirmed reports indicated that the two men were holding a meeting with a pair of insurgents to discuss peace plans. That raises the possibility that one of the insurgents could have been the bomber. Mohammad Aslam, a baker whose shop is just down the road from the house, said he thought the blast came from within the house as the sound of the explosion was “extremely weak”. Rabbani, who was chairman of the High Peace Council which was set up by Karzai last year to develop a framework for peace, regularly held meetings with insurgents on either side of the Afghan-Pakistani border. A Tajik and former warlord from northern Afghanistan who fought against the Taliban, he was a controversial choice. Although many analysts argued that the Taliban would never take a man with his history seriously, his appointment was also designed to appease northern, non-Pashtun Afghans who were deeply suspicious of any peace deals. Rabbani’s death is likely to embolden those opposition figures who are most strongly opposed to a peace talks with insurgents. Afghanistan Hamid Karzai Taliban Jon Boone guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Stepping Hill nurse criticises media over arrest ordeal

Rebecca Leighton, who was freed without charge over patients’ deaths, speaks about her experience on ITV’s This Morning A nurse who was held on remand for six weeks on suspicion of being responsible for the deaths of patients at Stepping Hill hospital has spoken of her ordeal and criticised her portrayal by the media following her arrest. In her first interview, with ITV’s This Morning programme on Tuesday, Rebecca Leighton described being arrested by police as absolutely horrendous, and said she was too scared to walk down the street alone because of public hostility. Leighton, from Heaviley, Stockport, said she had “pleaded” with the police after her arrest not to stop looking for the real culprit in the investigation. “I pleaded with the police, every day, all the time: ‘Just don’t stop looking. Don’t stop with me because if you do then surely the person that has done these horrific things is still going to be out there,’” she said. “It worried me so much that the patients, everybody, were still going to be affected by it all.” She believes the media were responsible for public hostility towards her, which resulted in a judge refusing her bail at Manchester crown court on 5 August. She was released from Styal prison in Cheshire, where she spent six weeks on remand, on 2 September, after the Crown Prosecution Service dropped all the charges against her. “Because of how the media have portrayed me to be … they could not be any more wrong, people have formed an opinion about me, so I believe it [the bail refusal] was for that reason,” she said. She said: “It’s hard to even say about having a normal life because even now my life is not normal. “I am living at my parents’, I am not living where I was living. I’m not working. I can’t go outside my house without people taking pictures of me. “I can’t walk down the street on my own because I’m a bit scared. Someone has always got to be with me all the time. It’s far from normal.” She said nursing was all she had ever done, adding: “I am so passionate about my job and looking after patients. That’s what I do. That’s what I have worked so hard for. “All this attention has been totally out of my control and I have been left now to try and sort everything out myself.” She said she wished her name had not been published in the media before she was charged. Police arrested the nurse in July after her fingerprints were apparently found on bags of saline fluid that had been contaminated with insulin at the Stockport hospital. Greater Manchester police have established that insulin was present in three patients – Tracey Arden, 44, Alfred Derek Weaver, 83, and Arnold Lancaster, 71 – who all died in July. Speaking of her arrest, she said: “Obviously I was asleep in bed because I was meant to be in work the next day. The police banged on the door. I thought the police wanted to ask further questions. “They came up to my flat. I was not expecting what was to come at all. I couldn’t believe what was happening. Even though I’d been arrested, I thought I’d be home in time for teatime.” She initially refused to have a solicitor present during questioning as she felt she had nothing to hide. But a police officer advised her to have a solicitor with her. “I just couldn’t make sense. I couldn’t string a sentence together. I just couldn’t understand what was going on, why it was me that was arrested, any of it. None of it made sense to me,” she said. “It was hard. I learned, obviously, through what I had been through, not to look too far down the line as to which way my life is going to go. “I just had that little bit of faith that this is going to end and it has got to end because surely they have got to realise at some point that it is not me.” She defended her portrayal in pictures posted on her Facebook page that were published in the press, saying she was “just being any normal 27-year-old girl” who goes out with her friends. “I was just out with my friends having a good time,” she said. “I have got a big group of friends and the media portrayed it to be that work got in the way of my social life. “Ask any of my friends – my friends will tell you that I never used to go out half as much as they wanted me to because I had a choice of working and I ended up working because that is what I loved.” She said she would love to go back to her life as it had been before, adding: “Anything bad that happens, you’ve got to turn it into a positive.” Last week, the Nursing and Midwifery Council revoked the suspension of her nursing registration with certain conditions. But she remains suspended on full pay by Stepping Hill while inquiries continue into allegations that she stole medication. Nursing Crime Television Health Helen Carter guardian.co.uk

Continue reading …
Conn. Justice ‘Apologizes’ to Susette Kelo for Eminent-Domain Decision, But Still Feels He Ruled Correctly

It appears that it's not news anywhere but at the Hartford Courant , where ” Little Pink House ” author Jeff Benedict reported the development on Saturday, and at Reason.com (HT to commenter dscott), which linked to the Courant story earlier today. I suspect it won't get much coverage at other establishment press outlets. The development is that one of the four Connecticut Supreme Court justices in the 4-3 majority which ruled against Susette Kelo and the New London, Connecticut eminent-domain holdouts, ultimately sending the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 against the plaintiffs in Kelo vs. New London , has apologized — quite emptily, as it turns out — to Ms. Kelo, face to face: … I faced that situation at a dinner honoring the Connecticut Supreme Court at the New Haven Lawn Club on May 11, 2010. That night I had delivered the keynote address on the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London. Susette Kelo was in the audience and I used the occasion to tell her personal story, as documented in my book “Little Pink House.” Afterward, Susette and I were talking in a small circle of people when we were approached by Justice Richard N. Palmer. Tall and imposing, he is one of the four justices who voted with the 4-3 majority against Susette and her neighbors. Facing me, he said: “Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently.” I was speechless. So was Susette. One more vote in her favor by the Connecticut Supreme Court would have changed history. The case probably would not have advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Susette and her neighbors might still be in their homes. Then Justice Palmer turned to Susette, took her hand and offered a heartfelt apology. Tears trickled down her red cheeks. It was the first time in the 12-year saga that anyone had uttered the words “I'm sorry.” It was all she could do to whisper the words: “Thank you.” Then Justice Palmer let go of her hand and walked off. If you stopped reading there, you would walk away thinking that the judge made an unconditional apology. Nope, as Benedict learned when he began pre-publication follow-up with Judge Palmer, who responded as follows in a November 2010 “personal and confidential” (at the time) letter: “Those comments,” he wrote, “were predicated on certain facts that we did not know (and could not have known) at the time of our decision and of which I was not fully aware until your talk — namely, that the city's development plan had never materialized and, as a result, years later, the land at issue remains barren and wholly undeveloped.” He later added that he could not know of those facts “because they were not yet in existence.” So the only reason he's sorry is that the promised development emanating from what five foolish U.S. Supreme Court justices at the time of the ruling asserted was a “carefully formulated … economic development plan” didn't come to pass. Judge Palmer proved that he still doesn't get it in a mid-August interview with Benedict in his chambers, and at the same time exposed the fatal flaw in so much of what passes for jurisprudence: Q: Looking back at the Kelo decision (by the Connecticut Supreme Court), how do you see it now? In other words, has it led to good law? A: I think that our court ultimately made the right decision insofar as it followed governing U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Whether the Kelo case has led to good statutory law is not a question for me or my court; so long as that law is constitutional, its merits are beyond the scope of our authority. Of course, judges are also citizens and, therefore, we may hold a view on the merits, but that view should not interfere with or affect our legal judgment concerning the law's constitutionality. I'm sorry, Judge Palmer, that doesn't cut it. The primary question before your court was whether Connecticut's statute went beyond the Constitution's Fifth Amendment restriction of eminent domain to “public use” situations. It wasn't, or shouldn't have been, about what had been done in previous cases, while perhaps looking to the Constitution as an afterthought. You blew the ruling, because even if New London somehow had concocted the most wonderful and “successful” plan on earth with gleaming new buildings all around, it still would not have involved a “public use,” and still should never, ever have been allowed. Judges should not care at all whether statist proponents of eminent-domain expansion have been able to rack up 100, 500, or 1,000 “precedent-setting” cases in front of pliant judges invoking “public purpose” instead of “public use” while allowing property to be taken from private citizens and conveyed to other private citizens. The starting point should always be what the Founders wrote, and determining what the Founders meant. Then, and only then, should case law matter. In Kelo vs. New London , case law shouldn't have meant a darned thing. The Fifth Amendment's “public use” limitation could hardly be more clear. This exposes the fundamental flaw of the legal system's overdependence on case law. Previous rulings which vary from what the Founders prescribed become the new de facto legal standards, while the importance of the Constitution's original words and the Founders' original intent continually diminish. Judge Palmer isn't “sorry” in any beneficial sense, and his apology to Susette Kelo, while perhaps a nice surface gesture, is as substantively hollow as the day is long. Now that Ms. Kelo understands the judge's twisted “logic” as explained to Benedict in the Courant, the guess here is that she totally agrees. That said, high-profile “apologies” often make news. So far this one hasn't. I doubt that it will. The establishment prefers statism, and to portray judges, especially leftist judges (Palmer is a Democrat , and Benedict really should have identified his party affiliation), as our infallible betters. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com .

Continue reading …
Conn. Justice ‘Apologizes’ to Susette Kelo for Eminent-Domain Ruling, But Still Feels He Ruled Correctly

It appears that it's not news anywhere but at the Hartford Courant , where ” Little Pink House ” author Jeff Benedict reported the development on Saturday, and at Reason.com (HT to commenter dscott), which linked to the Courant story earlier today. I suspect it won't get much coverage at other establishment press outlets. The development is that one of the four Connecticut Supreme Court justices in the 4-3 majority which ruled against Susette Kelo and the New London, Connecticut eminent-domain holdouts, ultimately sending the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 5-4 against the plaintiffs in Kelo vs. New London , has apologized — quite emptily, as it turns out — to Ms. Kelo, face to face: … I faced that situation at a dinner honoring the Connecticut Supreme Court at the New Haven Lawn Club on May 11, 2010. That night I had delivered the keynote address on the U.S. Supreme Court's infamous 5-4 decision in Kelo v. New London. Susette Kelo was in the audience and I used the occasion to tell her personal story, as documented in my book “Little Pink House.” Afterward, Susette and I were talking in a small circle of people when we were approached by Justice Richard N. Palmer. Tall and imposing, he is one of the four justices who voted with the 4-3 majority against Susette and her neighbors. Facing me, he said: “Had I known all of what you just told us, I would have voted differently.” I was speechless. So was Susette. One more vote in her favor by the Connecticut Supreme Court would have changed history. The case probably would not have advanced to the U.S. Supreme Court, and Susette and her neighbors might still be in their homes. Then Justice Palmer turned to Susette, took her hand and offered a heartfelt apology. Tears trickled down her red cheeks. It was the first time in the 12-year saga that anyone had uttered the words “I'm sorry.” It was all she could do to whisper the words: “Thank you.” Then Justice Palmer let go of her hand and walked off. If you stopped reading there, you would walk away thinking that the judge made an unconditional apology. Nope, as Benedict learned when he began pre-publication follow-up with Judge Palmer, who responded as follows in a November 2010 “personal and confidential” (at the time) letter: “Those comments,” he wrote, “were predicated on certain facts that we did not know (and could not have known) at the time of our decision and of which I was not fully aware until your talk — namely, that the city's development plan had never materialized and, as a result, years later, the land at issue remains barren and wholly undeveloped.” He later added that he could not know of those facts “because they were not yet in existence.” So the only reason he's sorry is that the promised development emanating from what five foolish U.S. Supreme Court justices at the time of the ruling asserted was a “carefully formulated … economic development plan” didn't come to pass. Judge Palmer proved that he still doesn't get it in a mid-August interview with Benedict in his chambers, and at the same time exposed the fatal flaw in so much of what passes for jurisprudence: Q: Looking back at the Kelo decision (by the Connecticut Supreme Court), how do you see it now? In other words, has it led to good law? A: I think that our court ultimately made the right decision insofar as it followed governing U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Whether the Kelo case has led to good statutory law is not a question for me or my court; so long as that law is constitutional, its merits are beyond the scope of our authority. Of course, judges are also citizens and, therefore, we may hold a view on the merits, but that view should not interfere with or affect our legal judgment concerning the law's constitutionality. I'm sorry, Judge Palmer, that doesn't cut it. The primary question before your court was whether Connecticut's statute went beyond the Constitution's Fifth Amendment restriction of eminent domain to “public use” situations. It wasn't, or shouldn't have been, about what had been done in previous cases, while perhaps looking to the Constitution as an afterthought. You blew the ruling, because even if New London somehow had concocted the most wonderful and “successful” plan on earth with gleaming new buildings all around, it still would not have involved a “public use,” and still should never, ever have been allowed. Judges should not care at all whether statist proponents of eminent-domain expansion have been able to rack up 100, 500, or 1,000 “precedent-setting” cases in front of pliant judges invoking “public purpose” instead of “public use” while allowing property to be taken from private citizens and conveyed to other private citizens. The starting point should always be what the Founders wrote, and determining what the Founders meant. Then, and only then, should case law matter. In Kelo vs. New London , case law shouldn't have meant a darned thing. The Fifth Amendment's “public use” limitation could hardly be more clear. This exposes the fundamental flaw of the legal system's overdependence on case law. Previous rulings which vary from what the Founders prescribed become the new de facto legal standards, while the importance of the Constitution's original words and the Founders' original intent continually diminish. Judge Palmer isn't “sorry” in any beneficial sense, and his apology to Susette Kelo, while perhaps a nice surface gesture, is as substantively hollow as the day is long. Now that Ms. Kelo understands the judge's twisted “logic” as explained to Benedict in the Courant, the guess here is that she totally agrees. That said, high-profile “apologies” often make news. So far this one hasn't. I doubt that it will. The establishment prefers statism, and to portray judges, especially leftist judges (Palmer is a Democrat , and Benedict really should have identified his party affiliation), as our infallible betters. Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.

Continue reading …
Tea Party Candidate: ‘Boehner Is A Socialist’

Click here to view this media A Republican tea party candidate running for Ohio’s 8th Congressional District declared Monday that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was a “socialist.” David Lewis told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that he hopes to defeat Boehner in the Republican primary by running on the tea party platform. “John Boehner is a socialist,” Lewis explained. “I’m not calling him names.” “Socialist!” Cavuto objected. “Now, David, come on. That’s a little extreme.” “It’s an economic policy. I’m not calling names,” Lewis insisted. “Here is someone that refuses to phase out Social Security. What I would do as a U.S. House member is work to phase out Social Security totally. 100 percent. That includes Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps. These are socialist policies.” “Does the tea party have your back?” Cavuto asked. “I believe so… The tea party is still trying to figure out whether they believe in socialist policies,” Lewis replied. “David, that’s a strong term to use. You know, many have been using it about liberals and those in Congress who want bigger and better government and all of that stuff. But you can call John Boehner probably a lot of things, but the socialist thing, don’t you think that’s a little over the top?” Cavuto wondered. Last September, Cavuto didn’t seem to mind as much when Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus told him that President Barack Obama was a “socialist at heart.”

Continue reading …
Tea Party Candidate: ‘Boehner Is A Socialist’

Click here to view this media A Republican tea party candidate running for Ohio’s 8th Congressional District declared Monday that House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) was a “socialist.” David Lewis told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto that he hopes to defeat Boehner in the Republican primary by running on the tea party platform. “John Boehner is a socialist,” Lewis explained. “I’m not calling him names.” “Socialist!” Cavuto objected. “Now, David, come on. That’s a little extreme.” “It’s an economic policy. I’m not calling names,” Lewis insisted. “Here is someone that refuses to phase out Social Security. What I would do as a U.S. House member is work to phase out Social Security totally. 100 percent. That includes Medicare, Medicaid, food stamps. These are socialist policies.” “Does the tea party have your back?” Cavuto asked. “I believe so… The tea party is still trying to figure out whether they believe in socialist policies,” Lewis replied. “David, that’s a strong term to use. You know, many have been using it about liberals and those in Congress who want bigger and better government and all of that stuff. But you can call John Boehner probably a lot of things, but the socialist thing, don’t you think that’s a little over the top?” Cavuto wondered. Last September, Cavuto didn’t seem to mind as much when Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus told him that President Barack Obama was a “socialist at heart.”

Continue reading …