Like Matt Taibbi, David Swanson also thinks the debt ceiling debate is a fraud . Matt Taibbi describes the debt ceiling charade in his own inimitable way: But what is becoming equally obvious, to both sides, is that the Obama White House is using this same artificial calamity to pitch its own increasingly rightward tilt to voters in advance of the 2012 elections. It has been extremely interesting in the last weeks to see observers on both sides of the aisle make this point. Just yesterday, the inimitable New York Times conservative Ross Douthat listed Obama’s not-so-secret rightward push as a the first in a list of reasons why the Republicans should dig in even more, instead of making a sensible deal: Barack Obama wants a right-leaning deficit deal . For months, liberals have expressed frustration with the president’s deficit strategy. The White House made no effort to tie a debt ceiling vote to the extension of the Bush tax cuts last December. It pre-emptively conceded that any increase in the ceiling should be accompanied by spending cuts. And every time Republicans dug in their heels, the administration gave ground. The not-so-secret secret is that the White House has given ground on purpose. Just as Republicans want to use the debt ceiling to make the president live with bigger spending cuts than he would otherwise support, Obama’s political team wants to use the leverage provided by those cra-a-a-zy Tea Partiers to make Democrats live with bigger spending cuts than they normally would support. Douthat makes this observation, then argues that the Republicans should recognize Obama’s hidden motive and hold out for an even better deal. It will then be a race to see which party can abandon employment in favor of deficit reduction faster . He writes: Why? Because the more conservative-seeming the final deal, the better for the president’s re-election effort. In that environment, Republicans have every incentive to push and keep pushing. Since any deal they cut will be used as an election-year prop in 2012, they need to make sure the president actually earns his budget-cutting bona fides. This is interesting because just last week, the liberal opposite of Douthat at the Times, Paul Krugman, came to the same conclusion: It’s getting harder and harder to trust Mr. Obama’s motives in the budget fight, given the way his economic rhetoric has veered to the right. In fact, if all you did was listen to his speeches, you might conclude that he basically shares the G.O.P.’s diagnosis of what ails our economy and what should be done to fix it. And maybe that’s not a false impression; maybe it’s the simple truth. One striking example of this rightward shift came in last weekend’s presidential address, in which Mr. Obama had this to say about the economics of the budget: “Government has to start living within its means, just like families do. We have to cut the spending we can’t afford so we can put the economy on sounder footing, and give our businesses the confidence they need to grow and create jobs.” Krugman seems to believe that Obama has basically purged all of his real economic advisors and is doing what Bush did on foreign policy — engaging in complex and portentous policy initiatives at the behest not of experts, but political advisors. Just as Bush had Karl Rove telling him when and how to launch military invasions and drop bombs on unsuspecting foreign human beings in order to establish electoral credentials, Obama might be playing chicken with the budget for the benefit of undecideds in Florida and Ohio. Some of what we’re hearing is presumably coming from the political team, whose members seem to believe that a move toward Republican positions, reminiscent of former President Bill Clinton’s “triangulation” in the 1990s, is the key to Mr. Obama’s re-election. And Mr. Clinton did, indeed, rebound from a big defeat in the 1994 midterms to win big two years later. But some of us think that the rebound had less to do with his rhetorical move to the center than with the five million jobs the economy added over those two years — an achievement not likely to be repeated this time, especially not in the face of harsh spending cuts. The blindness of the DLC-era “Third Way” Democratic Party continues to be an astounding thing. For more than a decade now they have been clinging to the idea that the path to electoral success is social liberalism plus laissez-faire economics – in other words, get Wall Street and corporate America to fund your campaigns, and get minorities, pro-choice and gay marriage activists (who will always be frightened into loyalty by the Tea Party/Christian loonies on the other side) to march at your rallies and vote every November. They’ve abandoned the unions-and-jobs platform that was the party’s anchor since Roosevelt, and the latest innovations all involve peeling back their own policy legacies from the 20th century. Obama’s new plan, for instance, might involve slashing Medicare and Social Security under “pressure” from the Republicans. I simply don’t believe the Democrats would really be worse off with voters if they committed themselves to putting people back to work, policing Wall Street, throwing their weight behind a real public option in health care, making hedge fund managers pay the same tax rates as ordinary people, ending the pointless wars abroad, etc. That they won’t do these things because they’re afraid of public criticism, and “responding to pressure,” is an increasingly transparent lie. This “Please, Br’er Fox, don’t throw me into dat dere briar patch” deal isn’t going to work for much longer. Just about everybody knows now that they want to go into that briar patch .
Continue reading …Green Vehicles Inc. Is No More; Governments (i.e., Taxpayers) Are Losers; Media Will Likely Be Mum
July 18, 2011 No Comment
Green Vehicles is no more. The world will somehow have to get by without the lovely vehicle pictured after the jump populating our streets and highways. Given that its owner put an “I've giving it up” blog post last Tuesday, and even though Drudge just caught it a few hours ago, it's pretty safe to assume that the Green Vehicles debacle won't be a national establishment press story. It is, however, a fairly hot story in Salinas, California, a city of about 150,000
Continue reading …
Concern about termination services is rising, with fewer doctors willing to perform the procedure, DoH says Pregnant women could find it harder in future to obtain an abortion because of the growing number of doctors who are opposed to carrying out terminations. A survey of medical students has found that almost half believe doctors should be allowed to refuse to perform any procedure to which they object on moral, cultural or religious grounds, such as prescribing contraception or treating someone who is drunk or high on drugs. Abortion provoked the strongest feelings among the 733 medical students surveyed, according to the study in the Journal of Medical Ethics. “The survey revealed that almost a third of students would not perform an abortion for a congenitally malformed foetus after 24 weeks, a quarter would not perform an abortion for failed contraception before 24 weeks and a fifth would not perform an abortion on a minor who was the victim of rape,” said researcher Dr Sophie Strickland. “In light of increasing demand for abortions, these results may have implications for women’s access to abortion services in the future,” she added. Concern about termination services is rising, with fewer doctors willing to perform the procedure, according to the Department of Health. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has voiced concern about the “slow but growing problem of trainees opting out of training in the termination of pregnancy and is therefore concerned about the abortion service of the future”. Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service , said: “Abortion is taught increasingly infrequently in medical school, and students may not be required to engage much with the reasons why a woman may find herself with an unwanted pregnancy and the distress this may cause. All of us involved in women’s reproductive healthcare need to ensure that young doctors understand why women need abortions, and that this is a profession to be proud of.” Some 45.2% of those surveyed believed doctors should have the right to refuse to treat someone when doing so clashed with their personal beliefs, but 40.6% disagreed. “Once qualified as doctors, if all these respondents acted on their conscience and refused to perform certain procedures, it may become impossible for conscientious objectors to be accommodated in medicine,” said Strickland. Backing for a doctor’s right to refuse to perform any procedure was highest among Muslim medical students, at 76.2%. Some 54.5% of Jewish students also thought doctors should have the right to refuse, as did 51.2% of Protestants and 46.3% of Catholics. Guidance drawn up by the General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates doctors, advises doctors to refer a patient to a colleague if they object to a certain procedure or treatment. “However, we also make clear that doctors have an overriding duty to provide care for patients who are in need of medical treatment, whatever the cause of that medical need. It is not acceptable to opt out of treating a particular patient or group of patients because of personal beliefs or views about them, for example if they misuse drugs or alcohol,” said Dr Peter Rubin, the GMC’s chair. The British Medical Association said that while doctors and medical students can refuse to participate in treatments they are uncomfortable with, patients must not be harmed or affected by their decision. They must also give patients enough information so they can seek treatment elsewhere within the NHS, according to a spokesman for the doctors’ union’s medical ethics committee. The Department of Health said: “Patients’ clinical needs always come first, and practising doctors understand this. It is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief and the law does not entitle people to apply such beliefs in a way which impinges upon other people, even if they claim that their religion or belief requires them to act in this way. “All patients have a right to a comprehensive and fair NHS. The NHS constitution, white paper and the Equality Act provide the legal framework and principles that underpin the way the NHS should provide its services and support its staff.” Abortion NHS Health Women Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Guardian/ICM poll shows Conservatives ahead and small rise in Ed Miliband’s personal rating – but slight slump for Labour The phone-hacking crisis has so far done little to shift attitudes to political leaders and their parties, a Guardian/ICM poll suggests. A small recovery in Ed Miliband’s personal rating has not been matched by a rise in Labour support. Instead, the Liberal Democrats appeared to have gained most, with party support up four points to 16%. That is the highest in an ICM poll since March, and also higher than in recent polls, whose different methodology typically shows a higher Labour and low Lib Dem share than the long-running Guardian/ICM series. This month’s rise in Lib Dem support has come at Labour’s expense, with the party dropping three points to 36%. This move, not yet confirmed by other polls, has the effect of giving the Conservatives, unchanged on 37%, a one-point lead. Only one other poll this year, also from ICM in March, has shown the Conservatives ahead. Other smaller parties are on a combined 11%. David Cameron remains more popular than either the coalition government or other leading politicians, although more people think he is doing a bad job than a good one. Among voters, 43% say good job – up one point on last month – and 48% say bad job – also up one. That gives him a net negative rating of -5. For Miliband, 31% say good job – up three points on June – and 47% say bad job – down two. That is a net negative rating of -16, improved from -21 last month. His position has strengthened among Labour supporters in particular. Now 58% say he is doing a good job compared with 45% last month. The Lib Dems’ rise in vote share is not matched by any improvement in Nick Clegg’s overall personal rating. While 33% say good job – down one – 54% say bad job, which is unchanged. That gives the Lib Dem leader a net negative rating of -21. But among Lib Dem supporters and past voters, there are signs of recovery. In this month’s poll 62% of people who backed the Lib Dems at the 2010 general election say they would do so again now – much higher than the 45% or so typical in recent ICM polls. Clegg’s personal rating has also risen among Lib Dems: he has a net score of +3, against -18 last month. Further polls will be needed before this shift can be confirmed as a trend and not an aberration. Meanwhile 34% of all voters say George Osborne, the chancellor, is doing a good job – unchanged – and 44% a bad one – down two. That is a net negative of -10. A decade ago, the Guardian asked people to rank professions by their status and reputation. A repeat of the exercise this month suggests little has changed. Journalists emerged bottom in both polls, with an average score of just 4.72 out of 10. That is a slight decline on 2001. Doctors come out top, on 8.05 out of 10, followed by nurses and teachers. Politicians come second last, just ahead of journalists: but hacking and the expenses scandal seems to have done little to lower their ranking further. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1003 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 15-17 July 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Conservatives Ed Miliband Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg David Cameron Labour Voter apathy Phone hacking Julian Glover guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Officials confirm talks lasting three hours took place in Tunisia – but Washington and Tripoli disagreed on what comes next The US and Libya on Saturday held their first face-to-face talks since the conflict in Libya began four months ago, officials from both governments have confirmed. But the two sides disagreed about what was discussed – and what happens next. The three-hour talks were held on neutral ground in Tunisia. A US state department official said Washington agreed to the meeting, after several requests from Tripoli, in order to deliver a message to the Libyan government that its leader, Muammar Gaddafi, had to step down. It was not the start of negotiations and no further talks were planned, the official said. But the Libyan government spokesman, Moussa Ibrahim, speaking in Tripoli, described it as a first step. “We support any dialogue, any peace initiative, as long as they don’t decide Libya’s future from outside,” Ibrahim told journalists in Tripoli. “We will discuss everything, but do not condition your peace talks. Let the Libyans decide their future.” The discussions took place amid concern in the US and Europe that the conflict – which Britain and France expected to lead quickly to Gaddafi’s exit – was dragging on. Washington, too, is keen on a quick resolution, with Barack Obama conscious of the war weariness in the US, with Libya coming on top of missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama has been calling publicly for several months for Gaddafi to stand down. The weekend meeting came after the US on Friday joined other countries in officially recognising the Libyan rebels as the new government, bringing the total of such countries to 30. A US state department official said the meeting was a one-off to emphasise that Gaddafi had to depart. Ibrahim has said in the past that negotiations that involved Gaddafi’s exit were a non-starter. The Americans who took part in the talks included the US ambassador to Libya, Gene Cretz, who was forced to leave Libya in December after embarrassing leaked cables on WikiLeaks , and Jeffrey Feltman, assistant secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs. Four members of Gaddafi’s inner circle also took part. The French foreign minister, Alain Juppe, last week said Paris was talking to representatives of the Gaddafi government. United States Libya US foreign policy Middle East Africa Ewen MacAskill guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Rep. Patrick McHenry was rewarded handsomely for slamming Elizabeth Warren at a Congressional hearing back in May, it seems. No wonder they wanted a second hearing. It was like a gold mine for him. I wonder if he got more after he went after her in a petty, personal way. Think Progress lists the donors and donations McHenry received on April 20, 2011, just ahead of the hearing: – Advance America PAC: $10,000 on 4/20/11 – Dennis Bassford, CEO of the Seattle-based payday lender MoneyTree: $4,600 on 4/20/11 – Sarah Bassford: $2,700 on 4/20/11 – Community Financial Services Association of America PAC (trade association for payday lenders): $5,000 on 4/20/11 – Checksmart Financial LLC PAC, an Ohio-based payday lender: $2,000 on 4/20/11 – A. David Davis, CEO of Ohio-based payday lender Check-n-go: $2,000 on 4/20/11 – Jared Davis, CEO of Ohio-based payday lender Axcess Financial: $2,000 on 4/20/11 – Roger Dean, CFO of Axcess Financial: $500 on 4/20/11 – EZCORP PAC, a Texas-based payday lender: $2,000 on 4/20/11 – Natl Pawnbrokers Assoc. PAC: $2,000 on 4/20/11 Advance America PAC is the political action committee for the payroll lender of the same name. Anyone who has had the misfortune of using them understands just how predatory they really are, and it’s not exactly surprising to discover they’re thriving in this economy, either. But then, their victims aren’t Republicans, so there’s that. Since we’re not going to get corporate money out of politics anytime soon, the best we can do is keep showing how it buys politicians for more than just votes. In this case, clearly they have a vested interest in not only keeping Elizabeth Warren out of of the CFPB, but also discrediting her personally as much as possible. Only a bought-and-paid-for politician like McHenry would stoop so low as to call her a liar about her schedule to satisfy his masters. This right here is why we can’t have nice things.
Continue reading …Rick Santorum Responds to Dan Savage Wanting to Perform Violent Hate Sex on Him
July 18, 2011 No Comment
As NewsBusters previously reported , sex advice columnist Dan Savage on HBO's “Real Time” Friday said he wanted to perform violent hate sex on Rick Santorum. On Monday, the former Pennsylvania Senator responded on WOR radio's Steve Malzberg show ( audio available here , relevant section at 5:00, partial transcript and commentary follow): STEVE MALZBERG, HOST: What’s your reaction to this filth? RICK SANTORUM: It’s just that. It’s filth. It’s, you know, this man has, has gone out there and tried to destroy my integrity. I mean, you’ve heard the whole issue of the Google issue. That’s Dan Savage. You know, it’s, it’s the lowest, you know, debasement of public discourse. It’s, it’s offensive beyond, you know, anything that any public figure or anybody in America should tolerate, and the mainstream media laughs about it. They, they, they kid about it. They write about it. They say, “Oh, Santorum’s got a Google problem.” For those unfamiliar, Savage initiated a campaign in 2003 to associate Santorum's name with a sexual act. As the gay activist alluded to on “Real Time” Friday, a santorum in perverted parlance now despicably refers to “the frothy mixture of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the byproduct of anal sex.” That's the kind of animal Savage is. Let's continue: SANTORUM: And then when you see this kind of even over the top, you know, not even, beyond that, the Google is worse than, than what he said there. They, they laugh about that, too. Why? Because it’s a liberal beating up on a conservative. And that’s okay. Whether it’s Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, it’s the Left making fun of someone who believes in the values that built America. It believes in traditional marriage. How outrageous. How bigoted. How hateful that you actually believe that, that, you know, raising children and, and, and families with mothers and fathers is something to be encouraged. That you’re, that, that, just because you hold those opinions, you are subject to the worst form of, of, of, of vulgarity on the internet, on television, and everywhere else, and they get away with, not only do they get away with the mainstream media, but they are applauded by the mainstream media. They are made, they are celebrated by, as you mentioned, in New York, by taking on these, these people who believe in these outmoded virtues, and, the bottom line is I stand and I wear it as a badge of honor that someone as vulgar and as, and as disgusting and as hate-filled as Dan Savage sees me as public enemy number one. To me, that tells me I must be doing something right. MALZBERG: Well, listen, God bless you, and you know you have friends here, and this man, again, I, I, I would like to see the organizers of the Gay Pride Parade to denounce him. Readers are advised that the man saying this vile stuff on national television – who also said he wished Republicans “were all f–king dead” – was the Grand Marshall of last month's Gay Pride Parade in New York City. They should be so proud. But I again digress: SANTORUM: They won’t denounce. They will applaud him for taking on, you know, someone who stands in their way. And this is all, this isn’t about power, Steve. This is about using, this is about (?), this is about intimidation. To ultimately see this is about intimidating anybody who stands up against them. You stand up against them, they will intimidate you, they will, they will use vile things, and the media will applaud them, and you will be ostracized in society. That’s their objective. It is, it is, it is nothing short of that. And so I would just encourage those who don’t want to see that trend to continue, if you can help us out, I would appreciate it, because I tell you what, they will keep it up, they will keep trying to marginalize and ostracize anybody who stands up against them and the media will applaud them. I would appreciate your help. You can go to ricksantorum.com if you want to help us. After saying goodbye to his guest, Malzberg gave his own opinion on this issue: MALZBERG: I mean, when I saw that, and I saw that on, on, on NewsBusters.org. I mean, I don’t watch – I don’t even have HBO. I wouldn’t give these people a dime. I stopped subscribing to HBO when they ran that series. It was after the Sopranos. It was after Curb Your Enthusiasm. It was, and it was, well, I think, I guess Curb is still on, but, it was when they made that military series about us fighting in the War, and it turned my stomach. I said, “That’s it – no more HBO.” So I dumped HBO, and boy oh boy, am I glad I did. To pay Bill Maher’s salary? How does he get away with this? How does the media allow this? How? I mean, to say that they, to have a show. To me, this is worse than what he got canned on ABC for saying when he reportedly got canned for saying that, as we played the other day, that our, it’s cowardly for us to lob rockets out of planes, but it’s not cowardly, and I’m paraphrasing, for the terrorists to stay on the plane. In other words, our troops are cowards but the terrorists were brave. That’s how I interpreted it. And he got canned. This, making jokes about having someone, I don’t know. It’s, and then the attack on Santorum. Can you imagine a conservative attacking a liberal presidential candidate in that manner? I’d like to blank the blank out of him. Are you kidding me? But, Santorum has it read properly. He’s right on target. This is, this is what they do, and the people who run the Gay Pride Parade, and anybody who participated in the Gay Pride Parade in New York City, if they don’t come out and denounce this in my view animal, Dan Savage, then they approve of him, and there’s no difference between them. As KSFO's Brian Sussman told me Monday morning, if he or any conservative radio host made this kind of a comment about any liberal, he not only would be immediately fired, it would be the end of his career. But so-called comedian Marc Maron and Savage can make such vile comments about conservative presidential candidates on national television, and neither them nor anyone associated with the show got admonished in any way. Exactly how did we get here as a nation where such invective is accepted and applauded by one side of the media while meeting with the harshest consequences on the other? As I wrote in my reports about Friday's “Real Time,” it may have contained the most vile political discussions ever aired on national television. Given the absence of announcements by HBO addressing what occurred on their program, it appears the powers that be at the cable network are just fine with this kind of discourse being aired by them. Makes you wonder how much worse it's going to get before they step in and stop it – or is there no such point?
Continue reading …FOX News went ballistic over Reverend Wright so I wonder why they’ve been so silent on this story about Michele quitting her radical church? Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has long been a darling of conservative evangelicals, but shortly before announcing her White House bid, she officially quit a church she’d belonged to for years. Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, and her husband, Marcus, withdrew their membership from Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minnesota, last month, according to church officials. The Bachmanns had been members of the church for more than 10 years, according to Joel Hochmuth, director of communications for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the broader denominational body of which Bachmann’s former church is a member. The church council granted the Bachmanns’ request to be released from their membership on June 21, Hochmuth said. — The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has come under criticism from some Catholics for its views on the papacy, an institution that the denomination calls the Antichrist. “We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy,” the denomination’s website says. “This is an historical judgment based on Scripture.” The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a statement Thursday about Bachmann’s denomination, saying it’s “regrettable that there are still strains of anti-Catholicism in some Protestant circles.” — Hochmuth said there are no formal ties between the counseling center and the denomination but added that it is not uncommon for churches to link off to members’ websites as in this case. Bachmann and Associates has faced accusations that it uses a controversial therapy that encourages gay and lesbian patients to change their sexual orientation. In an interview with the Minnesota Star Tribune published Friday, Marcus Bachmann did not deny that he or other counselors at his clinic used the technique but said they did so only at the request of a patient. “Is it a remedy form that I typically would use?” he said. “It is at the client’s discretion.” She left her church and hubby Marcus says that they did use the pray-the-gay away therapy because patients requested it. Maybe Sean Hannity will have a few specials about Marcus’ insane therapy and the Salem Lutheran Church since FOX News is fair and balanced . What are the chances of that?
Continue reading …FOX News went ballistic over Reverend Wright so I wonder why they’ve been so silent on this story about Michele quitting her radical church? Republican presidential candidate Michele Bachmann has long been a darling of conservative evangelicals, but shortly before announcing her White House bid, she officially quit a church she’d belonged to for years. Bachmann, a Minnesota congresswoman, and her husband, Marcus, withdrew their membership from Salem Lutheran Church in Stillwater, Minnesota, last month, according to church officials. The Bachmanns had been members of the church for more than 10 years, according to Joel Hochmuth, director of communications for the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, the broader denominational body of which Bachmann’s former church is a member. The church council granted the Bachmanns’ request to be released from their membership on June 21, Hochmuth said. — The Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod has come under criticism from some Catholics for its views on the papacy, an institution that the denomination calls the Antichrist. “We identify the Antichrist as the Papacy,” the denomination’s website says. “This is an historical judgment based on Scripture.” The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights issued a statement Thursday about Bachmann’s denomination, saying it’s “regrettable that there are still strains of anti-Catholicism in some Protestant circles.” — Hochmuth said there are no formal ties between the counseling center and the denomination but added that it is not uncommon for churches to link off to members’ websites as in this case. Bachmann and Associates has faced accusations that it uses a controversial therapy that encourages gay and lesbian patients to change their sexual orientation. In an interview with the Minnesota Star Tribune published Friday, Marcus Bachmann did not deny that he or other counselors at his clinic used the technique but said they did so only at the request of a patient. “Is it a remedy form that I typically would use?” he said. “It is at the client’s discretion.” She left her church and hubby Marcus says that they did use the pray-the-gay away therapy because patients requested it. Maybe Sean Hannity will have a few specials about Marcus’ insane therapy and the Salem Lutheran Church since FOX News is fair and balanced . What are the chances of that?
Continue reading …
On his Saturday show Your Money, CNN host Ali Velshi tried to pin the blame for the debt ceiling standoff on one man – the president of Americans for Tax Reform, Grover Norquist. “Are you the reason that we don't have a debt ceiling increase right now?” he boldly asked his guest. Velshi was referring to Norquist's pledge that entails elected officials who sign it promising to oppose increases in taxes. Velshi termed the pledge one of “remarkable inflexibility.” He questioned outright the viability of the pledge. “Why is preserving the inability to increase taxes more important than the overall health of the economy and the danger that it's putting us into right now?” he asked. [Video below the break.] The host interrupted his guest multiple times, framing the debate around his own terms and even suggesting that certain higher taxes are “fair.” When Norquist tried to argue that the current debt situation is due to President Obama, Velshi abruptly dismissed the point as “an unreasonable position.” “A lot of people are wondering if it's appropriate that you hold so much power in the Republican Party,” the CNN host asked Norquist, throwing a cheap shot his way. He made sure to get another low blow in at the interview's end. “Grover Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform, a name that doesn't entirely represent what he's doing,” Velshi growled. A transcript of the segment, which aired on July 16 at 1:08 p.m. EDT is as follows: ALI VELSHI: Grover, your lobbying group has gotten more than 230 House Republicans and nearly 40 GOP senators to sign a pledge never to support an increase in taxes. And you warn those who break your pledge will pay a political price. Are you the reason that we don't have a debt ceiling increase right now? (…) GROVER NORQUIST, president, Americans for Tax Reform: Our friend, President Obama, has said he won't try and solve the problem he created with his spending unless people give him more money. VELSHI: Oh, wait, wait, wait, wait a minute. He created with his spending? You didn't just suggest that our budget problem is because of President Obama, did you, Grover? (…) VELSHI: Let's – let's have a real conversation here, Grover. (…) VELSHI: Are we in this debt situation – (Crosstalk) – because of the Obama administration, Grover? NORQUIST: Yes. VELSHI: OK. We're going to pass by that question, because that's an unreasonable position. (…) VELSHI: Why is preserving the inability to increase taxes more important than the overall health of the economy and the danger that it's putting us into right now? (…) VELSHI: OK, Grover, hold on right there because I want to ask you whether or not there are any taxes in this country that you need to see increased to make things a little more fair. (…) VELSHI: Grover, you've gotten so many Republicans in Congress to sign a pledge to never raise taxes. A lot of people are wondering if it's appropriate that you hold so much power in the Republican Party. You've never been elected to public office. But you certainly are influential. What's the consequence, if somebody who has signed one of those pledges, one of those pledges of remarkable inflexibility that you forced them to sign, goes against you? (…) VELSHI: Is it not more important, Grover, that people can trust their elected officials to make the right decisions in their interest than to be loyal to Grover Norquist so that they get reelected again? NORQUIST: OK, are you not listening? VELSHI: I'm listening very clearly. NORQUIST: The pledge is not to me. The pledge is to their constituents. VELSHI: I'm waiting for you to tell me why what you do makes America better. (…) VELSHI: I'll give you this, Grover. You were into this long before it was majority opinion. But right now, you've seen the Quinnipiac poll. You've seen the Gallup poll that says most Republicans – not most Americans – most Republicans agree with the fact that there need to be spending cuts and some corresponding tax increases. Do you think that there is not a tax in America on the wealthy or on corporations that needs to be increased? There's just no tax anywhere that you think needs to be increased? (…) VELSHI: And I'll save — I'll save the viewers, by the way, from going to your Web site. The pledge reads this, “I, the undersigned, pledge to the taxpayers of the state of undersigned and all the people of this state that I will oppose and vote against all efforts to increase taxes.” (…) VELSHI: And are you OK with the fact that the pledge may cost Americans when this debt ceiling is not increased? It will cost Americans a lot of money when it's not increased. NORQUIST: I hope that President Obama will not stick to his ideological left-wing guns and demand more spending and tax increases, that he will come to the table and actually put something in writing, which he hasn't done yet. There is no Obama plan in writing – VELSHI: Wow. NORQUIST: – that he's negotiating from. VELSHI: Grover, it is remarkable – remarkable to hear you suggesting that President Obama does not stick to his ideological guns when your entire – NORQUIST: I hope he won't. VELSHI: – existence is about sticking to your ideological guns. Grover Norquist, thanks for coming on the show. Grover Norquist is the president of Americans for Tax Reform, a name that doesn't entirely represent what he's doing.
Continue reading …