Posts Tagged ‘party’

Chris Weigant: Obama’s Bipartisan Obsession (Finally) Ends

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

Obama’s speech signaled that he’s over his obsession with chasing the nonexistent pipe dream of bipartisanship from Republicans. He defined what his party stands for and why their values are superior to Republicans’. Read More… More on Barack Obama

Follow this link:
Chris Weigant: Obama’s Bipartisan Obsession (Finally) Ends
Iluvnutrition

Haley Barbour To Republicans: Social Issues ‘Ain’t Going To Change Anybody’s Vote’

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

Republican Governor’s Association Chair Haley Barbour cautioned Republican candidates on Wednesday against bringing social issues into the campaign, arguing that any discussion beyond the economy would prove distracting and problematic to their election hopes. In a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor, the Mississippi Republican was asked for his take on remarks made earlier in the year by Mitch Daniels, the Indiana Governor, who had urged social and fiscal conservatives to reach an informal truce for the purposes of 2010. “I think what Mitch said is very similar to what I have responded to today,” Barbour replied. “The voters have on their mind the economy, jobs, spending, debt and taxes and good campaigns are about the issues that are on the peoples minds. “I’ll put my bonafides up against anybody as a social conservative,” he added, noting that as governor, Mississippi was voted the safest state in the country for an unborn child. “But that ain’t going to change anybody’s vote this year because people are concerned about job, the economy, growth and taxes… you are using up valuable time and resources that can be used to talk to people about what they care about.” Barbour, indeed, stressed repeatedly during the hour-long session that Republicans could ostensibly coast to major Election Day pickups if they simply continued to put the spotlight on the nation’s economic woes. Asked what the GOP had done to win over skeptical voters, Barbour took stock in the efficacy of the party’s obstructionism. “In very unified fashion they have opposed bad policy,” he said. “The public appreciates the effort to try and stop [that policy]. And they understand math. They understand that we don’t have the votes….” Read more: Barbour Social Issues , Barbous 2010 , Haley Barbour , Barbour Republicans , Rga Chair Barbour , Politics News

View original post here:
Haley Barbour To Republicans: Social Issues ‘Ain’t Going To Change Anybody’s Vote’
Iluvnutrition

Rendell Being Rendell, Calls Republicans ‘Fruit Loops’, ‘Whackos’ And ‘Flat-Out Crazy’

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

In an unofficial start to the last stretch of the 2010 campaign season, top officials throughout the Democratic Party upped the rhetoric on Wednesday, spotlighting the crazier characters and policy positions that could land in Congress with GOP gains. No one, however, brought as much gusto to the pitch as Gov. Ed Rendell (D-Penn.) Introducing DNC Chairman Tim Kaine at the University of Pennsylvania, the retiring Pennsylvania Democrat, known for his oratorical flair, warned about the government being taken over by “whackos.” He called some of the more colorful characters in the Republican Party “fruit loops.” He derided House Minority Leader John Boehner as “the tan guy,” and said that some of the GOP’s positions are “flat out crazy.” “I’m telling you,” Rendell said. “If I’m an independent voter in [Rep.] Patrick Murphy’s district, sure I’m worried about the deficit but I sure as heck am worried about people who want to do away with the 14th amendment. I’m sure as heck worried about people who don’t think the president was born in the United States of America. I sure as heck am worried about people who think that workers are staying home because of unemployment benefits… they are nuts. They are flat-out crazy.” “We are going to turn the reins of the Congress over to these people who are more and more dominated by the whacko right?” he added. Following Rendell on the stage, Kaine took a slightly less rowdy approach to his castigation of the GOP, choosing instead to go through a list of the more outlandish Senate candidates and their inflammatory positions. In all, however, this appears to be the last push Democrats will make as the election looms. The policies passed by the Democratic Congress have not sold as well as planned with the American public. The president doesn’t have the same political sway as he did just months ago. And the economy has yet to recover to a level that leaves the public comforted. The final resort to motivate voters rests in pointing out how much worse a change of power could be. Rendell himself hinted as much when he noted at the beginning of his remarks that if the Democratic Party “can bridge the enthusiasm gap, we can win.” White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod offered as much when he told the Huffington Post that a Republican-controlled Congress in 2010 could push policies worse than those that defined the Bush administration. “I saw that [Alaska GOP Senate candidate] Joe Miller said that he would abolish Social Security if he had the chance and he is not alone,” said Axelrod. “This is akin to what [Nevada GOP Senate candidate] Sharron Angle has said in Nevada and also a number of these other Republicans. So, this could go one step beyond the policies of the Bush administration to something more extreme than we have seen.” Read more: Republican Party , Rendell Republicans , Rendell Gop , Ed Rendell , Rendell Fruit Loops , Rendell Whackos , Politics News

Read the original:
Rendell Being Rendell, Calls Republicans ‘Fruit Loops’, ‘Whackos’ And ‘Flat-Out Crazy’
Iluvnutrition

Dennis A. Henigan: Message to Progressives: Reclaim the Constitution!

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

It is time for progressives to stand up to the radical right and proclaim: “It’s our Constitution, too!” The Tea Partiers and the radical libertarians cast themselves as so-called “constitutionalists” — possessed with unique insight into the original meaning intended by the Framers and dedication to defending the Constitution’s words against those who would ignore them in pursuit of progressive social policies. Increasingly, conservatives seek to frame the political debate as a contest between those who understand the Constitution (themselves) and those who don’t. For example, Utah’s Tea Party Republican candidate for the Senate from Utah, Mike Lee, pledges not to vote for any bill “that I can’t justify by the text and original understanding of the Constitution,” as if his opponent has no problem defying the Constitution. This right wing’s assertion of “ownership” of our Constitution is playing out most dramatically on the issue of federal power vs. states’ rights. Take, for instance, the movement in state legislatures to enact so-called “Firearms Freedom” statutes. These bills, so far enacted into law in six states and proposed in over twenty others, declare that guns manufactured and possessed entirely within a state’s borders are not subject to federal law. Under the Montana version, for example, a lucrative business awaits the Montana resident who wants to manufacture unserialized and untraceable guns for sale to Montana felons without complying with Brady Act background checks. Just stamp the guns “Made In Montana” and you are good to go. There is little doubt that the federal courts will make mincemeat of these “Firearms Freedom” laws. The first ruling came down last week, as a federal magistrate judge in Montana struck down that state’s law. Agreeing with the Brady Center’s brief , the judge found the law flatly unconstitutional under decades-old Supreme Court precedent recognizing federal authority to regulate entirely intrastate activity if exempting that activity would undercut federal regulation of interstate activity. As recently as 2005, a conservative majority of the Supreme Court reaffirmed this precedent by recognizing federal power to prohibit the purely local production and medical use of marijuana authorized by state law. The “Firearms Freedom” laws are more in tune with those who opposed ratification of our Constitution than with the Constitution itself. After all, one of the central concerns leading to adoption of our Constitution was that the earlier Articles of Confederation gave the Congress insufficient authority to legislate on behalf of the entire nation. The Anti-Federalists who opposed ratification did so largely because they opposed the new powers the Constitution conferred on the federal government. (Today’s “Federalist Society” of conservative lawyers more accurately should be called the “Anti-Federalist Society.”) In fact, the contemporary right can legitimately claim “ownership” only of the losing side in the great constitutional debate over federal power vs. states’ rights. Defending our Constitution means defending its specific grant of power to Congress to “regulate Commerce . . . among the several states” and to “make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper” for executing that power. It also means defending the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, by which federal law “shall be the supreme Law of the Land . . . .” Can there be any more direct expression of contempt for the Supremacy Clause than the premise of the “Firearms Freedom” statutes that individual states have the authority to determine for themselves the extent of federal power? Nor can the right find refuge in the Tenth Amendment, which has inspired the passionate devotion of the Tea Partiers with little evidence that they have actually read its text. It provides only that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution” are “reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Of course, nothing in these words diminishes the powers that are “delegated to the United States.” It is time for progressives to stand up to the right’s misappropriation of our Constitution and to claim for themselves the label of “constitutionalists.” After all, proponents of a stronger federal government were the winners of the Founding-era debate. The radical right of the modern era can trace its lineage only to the losers. For more information, see Dennis Henigan’s Lethal Logic: Exploding the Myths that Paralyze American Gun Policy (Potomac Books 2009)

Go here to read the rest:
Dennis A. Henigan: Message to Progressives: Reclaim the Constitution!
Iluvnutrition

Obama Blasts Bush Tax Cuts, Calls Out John Boehner In Ohio Economic Speech

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

CLEVELAND — Politically weakened but refusing to bend, President Barack Obama insisted Wednesday that Bush-era tax cuts be cut off for the wealthiest Americans, joining battle with Republicans – and some fellow Democrats – just two months before bruising midterm elections. Singling out House GOP leader John Boehner in his home state, Obama delivered a searing attack on Republicans for advocating “the same philosophy that led to this mess in the first place: cut more taxes for millionaires and cut more rules for corporations.” Obama rolled out a trio of new plans to help spur job growth and invigorate the sluggish national economic recovery. They would expand and permanently extend a research and development tax credit that lapsed in 2009, allow businesses to write off 100 percent of their investments in equipment and plants through 2011 and pump $50 billion into highway, rail, airport and other infrastructure projects. The package was assembled by the president’s economic team after it became clear that the recovery was running out of steam. There was a political component, too: With Democrats in danger of losing control of the House in November, Obama is under heavy pressure to show voters that he and his party are ready to do more to get the economy moving and get millions of jobless Americans back to work. However, none of Wednesday’s proposals, nor Obama’s call for allowing tax rates to rise for the wealthiest Americans, seems likely to be acted on by Congress before the elections, reflecting the battering Obama and congressional Democrats have taken in public opinion polls. Obama made one of his strongest appeals yet to allow the tax cuts passed under President George W. Bush – in 2001 and 2003 – to expire at the end of the year on schedule, but just for individuals earning more than $200,000 annually or joint filers earning over $250,000. The changes would affect dividend and capital gains rates and various other tax benefits as well as income from wages and salaries. The president’s strategy – pushing for legislation to save some tax cuts but not all – carries its own risks. Since all the tax breaks would expire automatically at the end of the year if Congress failed to act, that could result in sweeping increases for taxpayers at every income level – a major blow to recovery hopes and a colossal dose of blame for voters to parcel out to lawmakers and the White House. Some influential Democrats, and Obama’s own former budget director, Peter Orszag, have suggested a compromise might be necessary – one to temporarily extend all the tax cuts, perhaps for a year or two – given the current election-year animosity between the two parties. But in his remarks in Cleveland, Obama strongly signaled he wasn’t about to sign off on any such deal. “Let me be clear to Mr. Boehner and everyone else. We should not hold middle class tax cuts hostage any longer,” the president said. The administration “is ready this week to give tax cuts to every American making $250,000 or less,” he said. It was a slight misstatement of his own position, since the $250,000 would apply to household income. The threshold for individuals would be $200,000 White House officials said Cleveland was picked as the speech site expressly because Boehner, who probably would become House speaker if Republicans take back control of the chamber in November, laid out his party’s economic agenda here in a fiery Aug. 24 speech. At that time, the Ohio Republican called for Obama to fire key economic advisers and to support an extension of all the Bush tax cuts. Boehner kept up the attack on Wednesday. “If the president is really serious about focusing on jobs, a good start would be taking the advice of his recently departed budget director and freezing all tax rates, coupled with cutting of federal spending to where it was before all the bailouts, government takeovers and `stimulus’ spending sprees,” he said after Obama spoke. Earlier, Boehner was even more specific on ABC’s “Good Morning America,” saying Congress should freeze all tax rates for two years and pare back federal spending to 2008 levels. The deep recession began in December 2007. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs noted that keeping the Bush tax cuts in effect just for two more years would represent a change from past calls by Boehner to keep them in place permanently. “My question for him is: Are they abandoning the permanent or are they going with the two-year plan? I’ve seen him saying permanent so many times that I tend to believe that,” Gibbs told reporters aboard Air Force One. “That’s his plan and I think that continues to be his plan.” Republicans, and some Democrats, argue that the fragile state of the economy makes this a poor time to raise taxes on anyone – and that increases could stifle wealthier people’s appetite for spending. Obama argued that the rich are more likely to save additional money than spend it. And he said the struggling U.S. economy can’t afford to spend $700 billion to keep lower tax rates in place for the nation’s highest earners. That $700 billion is what the nonpartisan congressional Joint Committee on Taxation estimates it would cost the Treasury to continue tax cuts for top earners over 10 years. What Obama wants to do would cost just over $3 trillion over the same period, the panel estimates. The debate over the Bush tax cuts is an unwelcome one for dozens of vulnerable Democratic incumbents just weeks before Election Day. Already, a handful of Democrats in conservative or swing districts, such as Reps. Gerry Connolly in the northern Virginia suburbs of Washington, D.C., and Bobby Bright in southeastern Alabama, have come out publicly for extending all the cuts – at least temporarily. Sen. Michael Bennet, D-Colo., engaged in a tight re-election battle, said he “would not support additional spending in a second stimulus package” and that any new initiatives such as Obama’s infrastructure package should be paid for with leftover funds in the $814 billion stimulus package passed last year. Still other embattled Democrats, wary of alienating middle-class voters, are siding with Obama. In central Ohio, for example, Rep. Mary Jo Kilroy has said the tax cuts for higher earners should be repealed but middle-income people should see no tax increases. Obama acknowledged recovery had slowed noticeably, with unemployment hovering just under 10 percent. “The middle class is still treading water, while those aspiring to reach the middle class are doing everything they can to keep from drowning,” he said. Polls have shown a steady slippage in Obama’s approval ratings and an accompanying rise in Republican prospects for winning House and Senate seats in November. That has chipped away at Obama’s leverage to get things done in Congress. Obama has sought to frame the election as a choice between continuing his policies or reinstating those pursued by Bush. He acknowledged in an interview with ABC after his speech that “if the election is a referendum on are people satisfied about the economy as it currently is, then we’re not going to do well, because I think everybody feels like this economy needs to better than it’s been doing.” The excerpt was aired Wednesday on ABC’s evening news. Fuller portions of the interview were airing Thursday morning on “Good Morning America.” ___ Tom Raum reported from Washington. Associated Press writers Stephen Ohlemacher and Erica Werner in Washington contributed to this report.

Originally posted here:
Obama Blasts Bush Tax Cuts, Calls Out John Boehner In Ohio Economic Speech
Iluvnutrition

GOP sets sights on statehouses – Dallas Morning News

Wednesday, September 8th, 2010

New York Daily News GOP sets sights on statehouses Dallas Morning News The midterm elections are being closely watched to determine whether Republicans will have a majority in Congress for the next two years. But it is the outcome of a lower-profile battle over state legislatures that could strengthen the Republican Party … Grim outlook for Democrats puts House up for grabs The Associated Press Study: Democratic turnout for primaries lowest in 80 years USA Today Dem base told: Fear Tea Party The Hill Crosscut

Jeanne Devon ("AKMuckraker"): Murkowski v. Miller v. McAdams?

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

After Republican/Tea Party candidate Joe Miller’s stunning defeat of Lisa Murkowski in the Alaska Senate primary, things have been all a-kilter. Everyone on the political spectrum from far left to moderate right has been in a panic. The far right turned out in force for the primary, in part because of a ballot initiative about parental notification for abortion, in part because of a half million dollar Miller media blitz, and in part because of the leftover Palin supporters who were still in the mood for a little roguishness. And now we have Joe Miller, who wants to phase out Medicare and Social Security, who thinks that abortion should be illegal even in cases of rape and incest, who thinks that unemployment is unconstitutional, and who thinks that the federal government should quit giving Alaska all that damned money. Federal dollars, like oil, make up one third of Alaska’s economy, but Mr. Miller, with his eyes on the Tea Party prize, doesn’t seem particularly concerned. Read More…

See more here:
Jeanne Devon ("AKMuckraker"): Murkowski v. Miller v. McAdams?
Iluvnutrition

Deborah Burger: What They Could Be Saying to the Joe Miller Republicans

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

Though Joe Miller is dismissed by some as an anomaly among Republicans, along with fellow tea party candidates Rand Paul in Kentucky and Sharon Angle in Nevada, his views parallel the more convention wing of the party. Read More… More on 2010 Elections

Link:
Deborah Burger: What They Could Be Saying to the Joe Miller Republicans

Kate Michelman: Progressives in America: It’s Time to Revive Our Party’s Values

Tuesday, September 7th, 2010

From the Obama administration’s stunning exclusion of abortion coverage in high-risk health-care insurance pools to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs’ straw-man excoriation of the “professional left,” the accumulating disappointments with the Obama White House have crystallized an important truth: Progressives should never let themselves be seduced by administration bright lights such that they overlook broken campaign promises. As committed progressives, we need to shift our focus — and, with it, our time, money and organizing — toward building a sustainable grassroots movement that turns promises made to us into positive outcomes. We need a unified strategic vision, we need to develop and promote our progressive ideas and policies, and then we need to oppose and contest anti-progressive candidates, “Blue Dog” Democrats and obstructionist Republicans alike. It’s not for us to “jump ship” or start third parties. Those who would consider such options have, I hope, learned the painful Ralph Nader lesson. Nor, as some suggest, should we sit on our hands in this up-coming election in order to send a message. We ought simply to refocus our emphasis to the hard work of building a movement that’s not wholly dependent on a single political personality. Since the thunderous election in November 2008 and the cresting of our hopes on Inauguration Day, progressives have been stung repeatedly by a litany of disappointments. Many of these bore at least a patina of expediency, counter-balanced by internal pledges of future support. Perhaps that’s why the administration’s ban on abortion coverage in high-risk pools was so clarifying. The administration had no reason to go so far and to so cruelly single out the women with the most fragile health. The fact that it did this under the guise of upholding a deal with Rep. Bart Stupak makes its decision less, not more, “clarifying.” The decision to pursue this policy reached well beyond the “Stupak compromise.” In the end, the White House negotiated with itself, further compromising its own position and the health and well-being of vulnerable women. The White House’s assurance that the order would be watered down with subsequent acts is less an excuse than just the latest in a disappointing pattern of “head-patting” and “excuse making.” Even the most accommodating progressives understand that it’s disingenuous in the extreme for the administration to promise to water down a potion cooked up in the administration’s own kitchen. But it’s the whispering from the White House that deserves the most attention, for it’s the most revealing. Progressives have repeatedly been implored to accept the limitations of the political environment — on abortion, on the public option, and on the shameful abandonment, without even the pretense of a fight, of Dawn Johnsen to head the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel. The Obama campaign generated so much excitement among progressives because it seemed to be embracing a principle which many of us have argued for years: namely, that the American people support progressive policies under the right circumstances. Progressives also thought they saw in Mr. Obama a leader who would take stands and fight on principle. Unfortunately, Washington conventional wisdom — and now “Obama practice” as well — have concluded that fighting for “hope” and “change” doesn’t mean actually fighting the battles for abortion rights, LGBT rights, and civil rights. Well enough, I say. For two generations, Americans have favored a woman’s right to choose. It seems almost wistful to recall that in the 2000 election candidate George W. Bush lost the support of millions of pro-choice Republican women and thus the overall popular vote. Nor should we forget that even with Newt Gingrich as an adversarial Speaker of the House, Bill Clinton had the political courage to hold a White House conference featuring women who had had late-term abortions. The belief within the Obama White House is that it can’t win civil rights fights writ large and that it shouldn’t even try. There is now an established practice of reacting to issues on an ad hoc basis rather than providing voters with an overall narrative and a values-driven context for understanding them. But it’s not only the White House that deserves our frank critique. Progressives also made an enormous error in assuming that Democratic majorities in Congress signaled the advent of a progressive agenda. The reality is that the large Democratic majorities in Congress today were achieved by recruiting candidates who were not themselves progressive and who in fact opposed key elements of the Party platform, including a woman’s right to choose whether or not to have an abortion. Progressives were sold a bill of goods by Democratic leaders who claimed that while these “blue dogs” were key to building a significant Democratic majority, they posed no threat on the policy front because the leadership would always be “with us.” Indeed, if one were to select the single moment when the opportunity for a truly progressive agenda was lost, it was when the Democratic Party campaign committees set their sights on majorities built on candidates who did not support the fundamental principles of the party. Looking forward, it is essential to understand and then remember what a progressive movement is and what it’s not. A progressive movement is ideas and policies. It’s the ability to convey those ideas to an electorate that in the past has seen little more than caricatures of progressive politics. And it’s the courage to challenge opponents whether they be phony Democrats or conservative Republicans. A progressive movement is not compromising your core beliefs for electoral outcomes, which more often than not lead only to broken promises and shattered principles. Kate Michelman is President Emeritus of NARAL Pro-Choice America and author of “WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL: A Life Spent Protecting the Right to Choose” (Penguin Hudson Street Press, 2005)

Continued here:
Kate Michelman: Progressives in America: It’s Time to Revive Our Party’s Values
Iluvnutrition

Matt Finkelstein: Five Ways "Speaker Boehner" Would Hurt American Workers

Monday, September 6th, 2010

Labor Day is about more than backyard barbecues. It is about honoring American workers and remembering how far we have come in expanding opportunity to all kinds of people. This year, Labor Day comes less than two months before a critical election that will give voters a distinct choice. While President Obama fights for an economy that serves us all, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and the Republican Party have consistently defended Wall Street, demonized unions, and put big businesses ahead of working Americans. With that in mind, here are just a few ways that “Speaker Boehner” would hurt American workers if Republicans win the majority in November. Outsourcing Jobs: Last month, the House passed a state aid package to prevent hundreds of thousands of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other workers from losing their jobs. The bill was paid for in part by closing a tax loophole that rewarded companies for offshoring American jobs. Amazingly, Boehner disparaged the public servants whose jobs were in jeopardy as ” special interests ,” and led House Republicans in opposing the bill. In July, House Republicans killed another bill that would have “provided nearly $20 billion in tax relief to small businesses and closed loopholes that encourage companies to ship jobs overseas.” With “Speaker Boehner” calling the shots, Republicans will fight to protect the profits of multinational corporations at the expense of American workers. Taxes: While Republican lawmakers fight to protect the rich from tax increases, working Americans actually stand to pay higher taxes if Republicans win the majority. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), the ranking member on the budget committee, has proposed a sweeping fiscal plan called the Roadmap For America’s Future that would cause the bottom 90 percent of taxpayers to owe more taxes than they would under President Obama’s proposals (see this chart prepared by Citizens for Tax Justice). Boehner has attempted to divert attention from Ryan’s plan, which would also slash Social Security and Medicare. However, as the party’s leading voice on fiscal matters, Ryan would obviously play a key role in crafting the policies of a Republican majority. Read More…

Read the rest here:
Matt Finkelstein: Five Ways "Speaker Boehner" Would Hurt American Workers