Tag-Archive for » Republicans «
Florida Gov. Rick Scott continues his assault on the poor. (Getty Images)Oh, to be a wealthy politician in this day and age. Tanyaa Weathersbee of Black America Web is reporting that Florida Gov. Rick Scott wants poor people to pay $35 for a drug test before they can collect welfare. Weatherbee highlights the fact that welfare recipients are not abusing drugs at a disproportionately higher rate than the general population.
In addition to rescinding a rule restoring voting rights of convicted felons who complete their sentences, the governor also wants state employees to submit to drug tests at least four times a year. Again, there is no evidence of rampant drug use among state employees.
What about those who abuse prescription drugs, most of whom are white? Law-enforcement officials in Florida approved a database that would help stop doctors from overprescribing addictive drugs. Of course, Scott wants to get rid of that database because it is too much government intrusion into people’s lives.
Maybe Scott is on that stuff, because he is clearly biased about his definition of too much government. Should government be rescinding the right of convicted felons to vote after completing their sentences? That sounds like invasion of privacy and too much government to me. We won’t mention how the pharmaceutical companies will benefit from the removal of that database. What is the fee to test CEOs of corporations that collect corporate welfare?
We get it: Republicans and Tea Party members want less government when it comes to corporations, taxes and their ability to build and maintain wealth, but more government when it comes to controlling the lives of the poor and disenfranchised. Hypocrisy at its worst.
The instant Democratic Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and 18 others were gunned down at a public meet-and-greet in Tucson, leaving six dead-including a federal judge, several retirees, and a 9-year-old student council representative-Tea Party grandmaster Sarah Palin and leaders of her movement swung into damage-control mode.
Palin offered condolences to the families of the shooting victims and called for prayers for peace and justice. Tea Party Express chairwoman Amy Kremer went further and condemned the shootings as “an attack on the democratic process.”
Palin’s and Kremer’s expressions of outrage are undoubtedly sincere and heartfelt. But those fine sentiments don’t absolve them of blame for helping to create the hyper-vicious, borderline-vigilante climate that has provoked more than one unbalanced kook -as the alleged shooter Jared Loughner clearly is-to blast away at innocents, under the guise of striking back at someone or something whose politics, ideas, religion, or race they hate.
That this country had entered a new era-where it was some thought it permissible to take the law into their own hands and bombard public officials with life-threatening letters, texts, phone calls, and in some cases physical attacks-was plainly evident during and after the health care reform debate last year.
Nearly a dozen Democrats and Republicans received threatening messages. Republican Rep. Eric Cantor got a bullet through his campaign-office window. Other legislators had their windows broken and their tires slashed. Palin didn’t help matters with her oft-quoted exhortation to conservatives to “reload”-complete with photos of her on hunting forays, gun in hand. Palin and GOP leaders drove home their message that political opponents-i.e. liberal and moderate Democrats-were ripe for attack when she plastered an image of crosshairs in a Facebook post listing 20 vulnerable House Democrats who had voted for health care reform. Giffords was one of them.
Palin sensed the dangerous line that she had edged up to with her depiction of Democrats in the GOP’s gun sights. She protested that she was not calling for anyone to slaughter them with weapons but to vote them out of office.
In essence, Republicans succeeded in playing on fears (some real and some imagin*ed) which scared substantial segments of the voting population away from the president’s economic policies and liberal agenda.
Those most affected by the scare tactics were older voters, wealthy voters and independent white voters who “surged to the polls” on November 2 to help return control of the U.S. House of Representatives to the Republicans and reduce the size of the Democratic Party majority in the U.S. Senate.
The report was released by Project Vote, a nonpartisan, nonprofit group, which also found that turnout by pro-Democratic blocs such as African-Americans, young people and Latinos dropped sharply from 2008 levels, leaving what it labeled “a lopsided pro-Republican electorate to dominate the national landscape.”
Compared with 2008, voting dropped off this year particularly among pro-Democratic groups:
o Young voters were down by 55 percent.
o African-Americans were down by 43 percent.
o Hispanics were down by 40 percent.
Of those voters who did show up this year, 4 out of 5 were white, 1 in 10 was African-American and 1 in 13 was Latino. The analysis is based primarily on exit poll data and preliminary estimates from the U.S. Elections Project.
The results strongly suggest that if Obama wants a second term as president, he will have to rely heavily on getting young whites, Blacks and Hispanics to the polls. Currently, however, the president and his advisors appear to be spending more time trying to work out deals with Republicans and appease their conservative base.
Just when you thought it was safe to go to Idaho again, right? Well, the guy that orchestrated this one figured he was making a positive statement on behalf of the Aryan nation.
Unfortunately for the poor “white separatist”, his neighbors were not having Mr. Hitler snowman on the front lawn representing their community. He was made to shut it down.
‘There’s just too much at risk in the next cycle not to make a change’
Some Republicans are looking for a challenger to RNC Chairman Michael Steele.
WASHINGTON — Turning their attention to the 2012 presidential election, Republican leaders are digging in for a battle over control of the Republican National Committee, judging that its role in fund-raising, get-out-the-vote operations and other tasks will be critical to the effort to topple President Obama.
Some senior party officials are maneuvering to put pressure on Michael Steele, the controversial party chairman, not to seek re-election when his term ends in January or, failing that, to encourage a challenger to step forward to take him on.
So far, the effort has been tentative, with Mr. Steele’s most ardent opponents working behind the scenes to persuade an alternative to run against him — fearful that any overt moves will create a backlash in Mr. Steele’s favor among those committee members who tend to view the establishment in Washington with suspicion.
One man leading the effort is a Mississippi Republican Party committeeman, Henry Barbour, who is a nephew of Gov. Haley Barbour of Mississippi — a former chairman of the Republican National Committee, himself. Governor Barbour is said by people involved in the discussions to be among those eager to see a change at the top of the party and recently criticized party fund-raising under Mr. Steele.
Officials close to the presumed new House speaker, Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, and the Senate minority leader, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said that both men would prefer a new chairman as well, but that they were also resigned to Mr. Steele’s continued leadership should no clear alternative emerge to defeat him.
‘Have to make a change’ In an interview Tuesday night, Henry Barbour said, “I like Mike Steele, and I’ve worked hard to support him as chairman.” But, he added, “I do think we have to make a change, and I have actively talked to some other members in the last week or so and encouraged a few of them to consider running.”
Among those Mr. Barbour has approached is a member of Mr. Steele’s “kitchen cabinet” of advisers, Reince Priebus, who is chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin and who helped manage Mr. Steele’s first election for the chairmanship two years ago.
Several officials involved in the discussions, all of whom requested anonymity to share details of the talks, said Mr. Priebus had recently warned Mr. Steele that a run for re-election could prove difficult this time around, and advised him to consider leaving the chairmanship at a time when he could point to big Republican gains nationwide.
But Mr. Priebus has made it clear that he is personally uncomfortable with the idea of challenging Mr. Steele directly for the post, given their friendship.
The effort to woo Mr. Priebus was first reported Tuesday on the Web site of The Washington Post.
Mr. Steele, who did not respond to interview requests on Tuesday, has said he has not decided whether to seek re-election when his two-year term expires in January. The 168 members of the Republican National Committee, who vote on the chairman, will convene then in Washington for their winter meeting.
But he is taking steps to build the support he would need in the face of deep opposition by Republican leaders on Capitol Hill and beyond — making personal appearances and granting party money in visits across the country and even in territories like Guam and the Virgin Islands.
‘Everybody has a learning curve’ “Whether I run or not, I’m going to be judged by what’s happened over the last two years,” Mr. Steele told reporters last week, arguing that the party’s early investments in important states and races helped Republicans reach their historic victory of picking up at least 60 House seats. “I think you can safely say the party has re-emerged. It is a very different party. I think it’s a transcendent party.”
Mr. Steele conceded that his tenure had not been perfect, saying, “Everybody has a learning curve, and clearly I had mine.”
The moves against Mr. Steele are a result of a perception that has been developing for months among the party’s seasoned political hands in Washington. His critics say Mr. Steele has performed poorly at the helm. They argue that his fund-raising was lackluster and point to comments he made that at times proved distracting and were at odds with Republican orthodoxy, as when he said the war in Afghanistan was “not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.”
As Henry Barbour put it, “There’s just too much at risk in the next cycle not to make a change.”
Mr. Steele said last week that he had modeled his effort after the 50-state strategy conceived by Howard Dean when he was chairman of the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Dean also infuriated leaders of his party four years ago by directing money and staff members to every state, not simply places where Democrats had a stronger chance to win..
Mr. Steele, his party’s first black chairman, dismissed criticism of his financial stewardship, saying he had purposefully focused on building grass-roots Republican activism rather than courting high-level donors.
But those working to remove him say a focus on high-level donors is one of the most important roles for a party chairman — if not the most important role — in a presidential election cycle.
Saul Anuzis, who represents Michigan on the Republican committee and ran for party chairman two years ago, said he was considering running again. “There clearly have been many major donors who have dropped off and have not contributed,” Mr. Anuzis said. “That’s a problem.”
But Dick Wadhams, chairman of the Colorado Republican Party, voiced tentative support for Mr. Steele. He said that while the national party gave less to states than it had in recent years, the resources it did provide proved critical in his state. “I don’t have any complaints,” Mr. Wadhams said. “I think there’s a chance he could be re-elected.”
House Republicans gathered Thursday at a lumber warehouse in Virginia to unveil their new “Pledge to America.” So what are they promising? To make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone, to repeal health-care reform, and to reduce federal spending. The Pledge is 45 pages. If this doesn’t Scare Democrats and Independents to the voting booth in November to vote for Democratic, well, nothing will.
Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein says “Their policy agenda is detailed and specific-a decision they will almost certainly come to regret. Because when you get past the adjectives and soaring language, the talk of inalienable rights and constitutional guarantees, you’re left with a set of hard promises that will increase the deficit by trillions of dollars, take health-care insurance away from tens of millions of people, create a level of policy uncertainty businesses have never previously known, and suck demand out of an economy that’s already got too little of it.”
The New Republic’s Jon Chait is also unimpressed:
“It’s a reprise of every theme of Republican economic policy-making the party has followed for 20 years.” He adds, “The Pledge to America fulminates against debt, but it should be read as a plan to explode debt through the ceiling.”
Last night on “The Daily Show,” Jon Stewart exposed the GOP’s new “Pledge to America,” plan as nothing more than a retread of Republican rhetoric from the last 20 years.
Stewart began by remembering two years ago when Republican senators previously pledged to make the GOP a “party of new ideas,” trying things like forum website America Speaking Out, and other ideas that ultimately failed. Now, with midterms around the corner, Republicans are trying to reinvent themselves once more, promising things like reduced spending, smaller government, permanent tax cuts, and other things that sound oddly familiar.
“Your fresh new ideas,” Stewart said, “sound slightly – I’m sorry, did I say slightly? – sound EXACTLY like your old ones.”
“This isn’t even a sequel,” Stewart said. “This is a shot-by-shot remake!”
It seems that the chairman and CEO of OneUnited, the bank at the center of the ethics investigation against Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA), has a troubled past himself, reports the Washington Post.
Not only has Kevin L. Cohee reportedly been arrested twice on sexual-assault and drug charges-although he has denied the arrests-the federal government also issued a “cease and desist” order to the bank due to his supposed living allowance that allowed him to live in a mansion.
Cohee’s bank purchased or leased luxury real estate for him-including an $880,000 condominium in Miami and a $26,250-a-month mansion in Santa Monica owned by Bruce Springsteen’s drummer-and reportedly paid for his Porsche.
Cohee promoted the bank as a responsible investor in minority communities, which Waters then helped promote in her district. Waters has described herself as a “professional and social” friend of Cohee.
On Thursday the US Senate confirmed Elena Kagan 63-37 to become an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, with a handful of Republicans joining almost all Democrats in making her the fourth woman to serve on the high court.
When the court’s new term starts in October, Ms. Kagan, 50, will join Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor to make up the first three-woman bloc in the court’s history.
Fifty-eight Democrats and independents as well as five Republicans voted for Ms. Kagan. Thirty-six Republicans and one Democrat, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, voted against the nominee. The five Republicans who supported Ms. Kagan were Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Richard Lugar of Indiana, and Judd Gregg of New Hampshire.
Was it a political power grab or a fairer way to assure all citizens have equal representation?
Voting district boundaries are poised to be redrawn following a controversial decision in Nassau County on Tuesday, reports CBS 2’s Jennifer McLogan.
It was standing room only inside the Nassau Legislature as hundreds of workers came to rally for a new Nassau Coliseum hub — with questions about the $400 million bond referendum facing taxpayers — when suddenly there was an abrupt and unexpected schedule change.
Presiding Officer Peter Schmitt announced a vote on the controversial redistricting plan. Yet many who came to voice objections couldn’t get in due to the overflow Coliseum crowd.
“If you’re not here to discuss redistricting, we ask you to stand up and let those people come in because that’s the item that they’re now calling,” was the order from the Legislature.
When the 2010 census confirmed a population shift, Nassau’s Republican majority began remapping boundaries, resulting in sweeping changes through Hempstead, the North Shore, and the Five Towns.
Democrats argued it was hastily drawn and a political power grab.
“It’s a desperate chance to retain their majority and they control redistricting again next year,” Democratic Legislator David Denenberg said.
Those who did get to speak against let it all hang out.
“It’s completely racist. It’s wrong and everybody up there knows it,” one person said.
“We are taxpayers and we shouldn’t have to go through this abuse that we hear here,” another said.
“Why are they so fearful? Why are they insistent upon pushing it through now?” wondered another.
Republicans explained they are mandated to make changes — that this will give all residents a greater voice. They said they are trying to assure one person, one vote.