+copy.jpg)
Rand Paul says its un-American for President Obama to place blame on British Petroleum for what could be the worst oil spill in American.
Why do we always have to assign blame for events? Sometimes things just happen Mr. Paul believes
In a related matter, Mr. Paul spent much of the previous day diffusing a tempest he unleashed when stating that he doesn't believe the federal government has a role in preventing discrimination in private businesses.
Mr. Paul blamed the 24 news cycle, while his father Ron Paul pointed at the "liberal media" for his son's recent beatings in the press.
Funny what happened to things sometime just happen?
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Senate. Show all posts
Friday, May 21, 2010
Monday, July 27, 2009
Happy Days are Here Again!
The Dow is over 9,000, new housing sales are up, Sarah Palin no long holds any official reins of power and another republiCON Senator is retiring. Things are really looking up!
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
NRA: Shooting blanks
On its way out the door, the Bush administration is gutting public safeguards like fish. Most recently, Bush and company killed the Park Service's common sense rule that requires all firearms transported in national parks to be stowed and unloaded. The Reagan era rule was enacted in part to prevent poaching. However, the NRA appears to have reached into the White House and used its supposed political power to ram through a rule change that would allow loaded and concealed weapons.
For years the NRA has thrown its weight around in Washington D.C. killing just about every needed gun control measure over the past few decades. It did this in part by scaring legislators and administrative officials alike with its perceived political power. Yet, does the NRA have that much political weight?
During the public comment period on the Park Service proposed rule, it was believed the NRA would flood the Park Service with millions of letters calling for the change. This didn't happen. In fact, the NRA was only able to muster about 40,000 letters. By comparison, conservation and law enforcement groups which opposed the changes, produced more than twice as many comments.
Furthermore, the NRA saw its power on Capitol hill take a significant hit this past November. Of the 18 NRA endorsed Senate races, NRA candidates won roughly half those contests. More troubling for the NRA, their endorsements in tight races in states like Colorado, North Carolina and Alaska went 0-6. Ouch!
However, what probably most reveals the NRA's waning influence is that it choose not to endorse candidates in 16 other Senate races. This despite the fact that in many of these contests such as that in Massachusetts, the Democratic incumbent was given an F on their gun voting record. This should have been a no brainer for the NRA, yet it chose to punt on this race.
Does the NRA deserve its political deference? Hardly. In fact, its quite clear the organization is running low on political ammo.
For years the NRA has thrown its weight around in Washington D.C. killing just about every needed gun control measure over the past few decades. It did this in part by scaring legislators and administrative officials alike with its perceived political power. Yet, does the NRA have that much political weight?
During the public comment period on the Park Service proposed rule, it was believed the NRA would flood the Park Service with millions of letters calling for the change. This didn't happen. In fact, the NRA was only able to muster about 40,000 letters. By comparison, conservation and law enforcement groups which opposed the changes, produced more than twice as many comments.
Furthermore, the NRA saw its power on Capitol hill take a significant hit this past November. Of the 18 NRA endorsed Senate races, NRA candidates won roughly half those contests. More troubling for the NRA, their endorsements in tight races in states like Colorado, North Carolina and Alaska went 0-6. Ouch!
However, what probably most reveals the NRA's waning influence is that it choose not to endorse candidates in 16 other Senate races. This despite the fact that in many of these contests such as that in Massachusetts, the Democratic incumbent was given an F on their gun voting record. This should have been a no brainer for the NRA, yet it chose to punt on this race.
Does the NRA deserve its political deference? Hardly. In fact, its quite clear the organization is running low on political ammo.
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
GOP to America: No You Can't
Recently, right wing blow hard Glen Beck interviewed republiCON Senator Saxby Chamblis. Glen asked Saxby if Georgia voters understand what's at stake in today's run off election. Saxby said republiCONS' goal in Congress is "to stop bad legislation or shape bad legislation." Wow! Stopping or shaping bad legislation is the new republiCON vision. It appears liberal America has "Yes we can!" while conservatives are reduced to "No we can't!"
This from the party that just a few short years ago was dreaming of a permanent legislative majority. My how they have fallen!
################
Be sure to check out the latest Obama stuff!
This from the party that just a few short years ago was dreaming of a permanent legislative majority. My how they have fallen!
################
Be sure to check out the latest Obama stuff!
Monday, March 5, 2007
No Pressure
Senator Pete Domenici (R-NM) has really stepped into it. Specifically, Senator Domenici has admitted that he contacted U.S. Attorney David Iglesias last year about an ongoing corruption investigation that included at least one Democratic lawmaker. Domenici now regrets making the call, but categorically denies he pressured or threatened Iglesias on the course of action the investigation should take. Sounds simple, right?
Unfortunately, there is the little matter that in 2006 Senator Domenici called upon the Department of Justice to fire Mr. Iglesias. Oops, that doesn't look too good.
Senator Domenici alleges he made the call for removal long before he contacted the U.S. Attorney about his ongoing corruption investigation. Okay, this makes everything hunky dory again, right?
Unless . . . one considers that Senator Domenici now was in a position to significantly shape the investigation. How so? Well, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine the Senator dropping his call for removal if say, the investigation went in a particular way. Gasp! Unfortunately for Mr. Iglesias he didn't change the investigation and ultimately was fired.
Congress has now gotten involved and hearings will begin Tuesday. Mr. Iglesias has been called to testify. Congress should ask the former U.S. Attorney if he felt Senator Domenici was asking him to alter his investigation in trade for his job. Unfortunately, it's unlikely the good Senator from New Mexico will be required to attend. Shame, it would be nice to see Mr. Domenici give his side of the story under a little pressure.
Unfortunately, there is the little matter that in 2006 Senator Domenici called upon the Department of Justice to fire Mr. Iglesias. Oops, that doesn't look too good.
Senator Domenici alleges he made the call for removal long before he contacted the U.S. Attorney about his ongoing corruption investigation. Okay, this makes everything hunky dory again, right?
Unless . . . one considers that Senator Domenici now was in a position to significantly shape the investigation. How so? Well, it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine the Senator dropping his call for removal if say, the investigation went in a particular way. Gasp! Unfortunately for Mr. Iglesias he didn't change the investigation and ultimately was fired.
Congress has now gotten involved and hearings will begin Tuesday. Mr. Iglesias has been called to testify. Congress should ask the former U.S. Attorney if he felt Senator Domenici was asking him to alter his investigation in trade for his job. Unfortunately, it's unlikely the good Senator from New Mexico will be required to attend. Shame, it would be nice to see Mr. Domenici give his side of the story under a little pressure.
Friday, February 2, 2007
Will the real republicans please stand up?
You've got to hand it to republicans, they never let reality come in the way of their propaganda. Case in point, GOP mouthpieces are pushing the line that Democratic candidates in the recent mid-term elections "ran as republicans to get elected." Click here.
This might come a surprise to some former legislators such as Richard Pombo, Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum or George Allen who ran as true conservative republicans and often labeled their Democratic opponents as "weak" and without ideas.
Republican apologists can spin their crushing November defeat any they want, but the truth is simply this, in each of the above races Democratic candidates defeated staunch republican opponents by running to their left.
Monday, January 29, 2007
State of the Union, Ugh!
Random thoughts on the President's State of the Union. What a mess!
Intro
Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate -- and I congratulate the Democrat majority. Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; (such as the national debt, climate change, or the war?) to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.
We're not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on (Can the Democrats quote the President on this come the elections in 2008?)-- as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done.
Budget
First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. (Certainly, if one makes deep cuts to social programs. Given that the defense department and entitlement programs such as social security and medicare take up roughly 2/3 of the budget, there isn’t much left to balance the budget with but social programs like those designed to protect the environment, better education and improve labor conditions.) What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. (Interesting that Republicans, the “fiscal responsibility” party wern't able to do this over the past six years.) We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (During the Clinton administration the budget actually ran a surplus. The current administration shoots for balancing the budget three years after its out of office. How bold!)
Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. (It's odd the President didn’t veto a single one of the earmarks that did make it to his desk! Rejecting those might have been a good first step in bringing the budget into balance and given him some credibility on this matter.)
Immigration
We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law. (Republican Tom Tancredo’s Presidential bid just took it in the shorts.)
Courts
A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of our citizens across our nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. We have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty, as well, to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. (Really? Where in the Constitution does it place this requirement on the Senate?)
Terrorism
In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful (and a few unlawful) and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.
Iraq
This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. (Nearly two thirds through his speech before the President finally mentions the most pressing issue on our time.) Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. (What happened to mission accomplished?)
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence (Can you say code word for civil war?) in its capital.
The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. (It appears the president doesn’t recognize the authority of the judicial branch in the fight on terror.)
And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Do you feel a draft?)
What the president didn't mention is just as interesting such as drilling in ANWR, New Orleans and its recovery after Katrina and the recent Chinese missile crisis and speaks volumes about his priorities.
Intro
Some in this chamber are new to the House and the Senate -- and I congratulate the Democrat majority. Congress has changed, but not our responsibilities. Each of us is guided by our own convictions -- and to these we must stay faithful. Yet we're all held to the same standards, and called to serve the same good purposes: To extend this nation's prosperity; to spend the people's money wisely; to solve problems, not leave them to future generations; (such as the national debt, climate change, or the war?) to guard America against all evil; and to keep faith with those we have sent forth to defend us.
We're not the first to come here with a government divided and uncertainty in the air. Like many before us, we can work through our differences, and achieve big things for the American people. Our citizens don't much care which side of the aisle we sit on (Can the Democrats quote the President on this come the elections in 2008?)-- as long as we're willing to cross that aisle when there is work to be done.
Budget
First, we must balance the federal budget. We can do so without raising taxes. (Certainly, if one makes deep cuts to social programs. Given that the defense department and entitlement programs such as social security and medicare take up roughly 2/3 of the budget, there isn’t much left to balance the budget with but social programs like those designed to protect the environment, better education and improve labor conditions.) What we need to do is impose spending discipline in Washington, D.C. (Interesting that Republicans, the “fiscal responsibility” party wern't able to do this over the past six years.) We set a goal of cutting the deficit in half by 2009, and met that goal three years ahead of schedule. Now let us take the next step. In the coming weeks, I will submit a budget that eliminates the federal deficit within the next five years. (During the Clinton administration the budget actually ran a surplus. The current administration shoots for balancing the budget three years after its out of office. How bold!)
Next, there is the matter of earmarks. These special interest items are often slipped into bills at the last hour -- when not even C-SPAN is watching. In 2005 alone, the number of earmarks grew to over 13,000 and totaled nearly $18 billion. Even worse, over 90 percent of earmarks never make it to the floor of the House and Senate -- they are dropped into committee reports that are not even part of the bill that arrives on my desk. (It's odd the President didn’t veto a single one of the earmarks that did make it to his desk! Rejecting those might have been a good first step in bringing the budget into balance and given him some credibility on this matter.)
Immigration
We need to uphold the great tradition of the melting pot that welcomes and assimilates new arrivals. We need to resolve the status of the illegal immigrants who are already in our country without animosity and without amnesty. Convictions run deep in this Capitol when it comes to immigration. Let us have a serious, civil, and conclusive debate, so that you can pass, and I can sign, comprehensive immigration reform into law. (Republican Tom Tancredo’s Presidential bid just took it in the shorts.)
Courts
A future of hope and opportunity requires a fair, impartial system of justice. The lives of our citizens across our nation are affected by the outcome of cases pending in our federal courts. We have a shared obligation to ensure that the federal courts have enough judges to hear those cases and deliver timely rulings. As President, I have a duty to nominate qualified men and women to vacancies on the federal bench. And the United States Senate has a duty, as well, to give those nominees a fair hearing, and a prompt up-or-down vote on the Senate floor. (Really? Where in the Constitution does it place this requirement on the Senate?)
Terrorism
In the sixth year since our nation was attacked, I wish I could report to you that the dangers had ended. They have not. And so it remains the policy of this government to use every lawful (and a few unlawful) and proper tool of intelligence, diplomacy, law enforcement, and military action to do our duty, to find these enemies, and to protect the American people.
Iraq
This is not the fight we entered in Iraq, but it is the fight we're in. (Nearly two thirds through his speech before the President finally mentions the most pressing issue on our time.) Every one of us wishes this war were over and won. (What happened to mission accomplished?)
In order to make progress toward this goal, the Iraqi government must stop the sectarian violence (Can you say code word for civil war?) in its capital.
The war on terror we fight today is a generational struggle that will continue long after you and I have turned our duties over to others. And that's why it's important to work together so our nation can see this great effort through. Both parties and both branches should work in close consultation. (It appears the president doesn’t recognize the authority of the judicial branch in the fight on terror.)
And one of the first steps we can take together is to add to the ranks of our military so that the American Armed Forces are ready for all the challenges ahead. Tonight I ask the Congress to authorize an increase in the size of our active Army and Marine Corps by 92,000 in the next five years. (Do you feel a draft?)
What the president didn't mention is just as interesting such as drilling in ANWR, New Orleans and its recovery after Katrina and the recent Chinese missile crisis and speaks volumes about his priorities.
Tuesday, January 16, 2007
Early Retirement
Senator Wayne Allard (R-CO) annoucned today he will not seek a third term in office.The fact that the GOP lost the Senate probably didn't have anything to do with his decision. Yeah right! One can't help but wonder how many more R's (are you reading this Saxby Chamblis, Norm Coleman) will decide to "retire" once their minority status truly sinks in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
