Contact Me By Email

Contact Me By Email

Showing posts with label Mitch McConnell. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mitch McConnell. Show all posts

Saturday, May 21, 2011

Tell the Senators from Big Oil: Stop putting Big Oil profits ahead of the American people.

Tell the Senators from Big Oil: Stop putting Big Oil profits ahead of the American people.

his past week, 48 Senators, including three Democrats and all but two Republicans, put Big Oil before the American people and helped defeat a bill that would have ended tax breaks for the five biggest oil companies.

How could anyone vote against a bill that would have kept $21 billion of American taxpayers' money out of the pockets of cash-rich oil companies?

One big reason is oil money in our political process. A lot of it. Oil and gas companies spent $39.5 million lobbying congress in just the first quarter of this year, and have donated nearly $18 million to the 48 Senators who voted to protect oil subsidies - five times more than to Senators who supported ending them.1

But make no mistake. Even though we didn't get the 60 votes required for passage, our pressure to end oil subsidies is already working. More and more legislators are acting defensive about their support of Big Oil over the American people.

In February, similar legislation to repeal some oil subsidies got only 44 votes. This time, we got 52 votes. That comes after CREDO Action members sent more than 225,000 petitions to the Senate and made more than 1,000 calls yesterday to 11 key Senators, six of whom flipped their position and voted to end tax breaks to Big Oil.

Senate Majority leader Harry Reid said that despite this defeat, he will continue to push for ending oil subsides as part of negotiations on the budget and to raise the debt ceiling.2

We need to keep the pressure on. And one key to breaking Big Oil's grasp on our legislators is letting Congress know that we know about the millions of dollars that Big Oil has given them.

Let's make sure that our Senators' votes to protect oil company profits don't go unanswered by those of us who actually pay the price.

1. "Senators Opposing End of Oil Subsidies Received Five Times More in Big Oil Campaign Cash," Oil Change International, May 17, 2011
2. "Senate rejects bill to cut oil tax breaks," The Hill, May 17, 2011

Here are the 48 Senators who voted against ending Big Oil subsidies: Alexander (R-TN), Ayotte (R-NH), Barrasso (R-WY), Begich (D-AK), Blunt (R-MO), Boozman (R-AR), Brown (R-MA), Burr (R-NC), Chambliss (R-GA), Coats (R-IN), Coburn (R-OK), Cochran (R-MS), Corker (R-TN), Cornyn (R-TX), Crapo (R-ID), DeMint (R-SC), Enzi (R-WY), Graham (R-SC), Grassley (R-IA), Hatch (R-UT), Heller (R-NV), Hoeven (R-ND), Hutchison (R-TX), Inhofe (R-OK), Isakson (R-GA), Johanns (R-NE), Johnson (R-WI), Kirk (R-IL), Kyl (R-AZ), Landrieu (D-LA), Lee (R-UT), Lugar (R-IN), McCain (R-AZ), McConnell (R-KY), Moran (R-KS), Murkowski (R-AK), Nelson (D-NE), Paul (R-KY), Portman (R-OH), Risch (R-ID), Roberts (R-KS), Rubio (R-FL), Sessions (R-AL), Shelby (R-AL), Thune (R-SD), Toomey (R-PA), Vitter (R-LA), Wicker (R-MS)

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

Is Obama a Muslim? Birthers, bigots, and Boehner's cowardice. - By William Saletan - Slate Magazine

John BoehnerImage via WikipediaIs Obama a Muslim? Birthers, bigots, and Boehner's cowardice. - By William Saletan - Slate

Republican leaders tiptoe around the smear campaign against Obama's faith and citizenship.

By William Saletan
Posted Monday, Feb. 14, 2011, at 8:23 AM ET

The party that was supposed to stand up to President Obama can't even stand up to its own fringe.

Six months ago on Meet the Press, NBC's David Gregory asked Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell about a survey in which 31 percent of Republicans said President Obama was a Muslim. McConnell demurred: "I think the faith that most Americans are questioning is the president's faith in the government to generate jobs." Gregory persisted: "As a leader of the country, Sir—as one of the most powerful Republicans in the country—do you think you have an obligation to say to [31] percent of Republicans in the country … who believe the president of the United States is a Muslim, 'That's misinformation'?"

The best McConnell would do was this: "The president says he's a Christian. I take him at his word."

Reviewing the exchange in Slate, my colleague John Dickerson tartly observed: "If McConnell wasn't trying to stir the pot, he also wasn't trying to lower the boil."

Well, that was half a year ago. And McConnell was just one Republican leader. And if he didn't explicitly denounce the Obama-Muslim conspiracy theories, as Gregory had requested, perhaps that was a result of being surprised by the question.

But since then, the leadership's pattern of cowardice in the face of Obamaphobic falsehoods has grown.

On Jan. 6, John Boehner's first day of business as speaker of the House, a heckler in the chamber challenged Obama's citizenship. NBC's Brian Williams asked Boehner: "You've got 12 members co-sponsoring legislation that does about the same thing: It expresses doubt [about Obama's citizenship]. Would you be willing to say: 'This is a distraction. I've looked at it to my satisfaction. Let's move on'?" Boehner replied: "The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there. That's good enough for me." For me, lest anyone feel that the speaker was imposing his personal beliefs.

Williams persisted: "Would you be willing to say that message to the 12 members in your caucus who seem to either believe otherwise, or are willing to express doubt and have co-sponsored legislation?"

Boehner answered: "Brian, when you come to the Congress of the United States, there are 435 of us. We're nothing more than a slice of America. People come regardless of party labels. They come with all kinds of beliefs and ideas. It's the melting pot of America. It's not up to me to tell them what to think."

Not up to me. Obama's citizenship, like one's religion or favorite color, is a matter of personal belief. Think what you want to.

On Jan. 23, Gregory asked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor: "There are elements of this country who question the president's citizenship, who think that his birth certificate is inauthentic. Will you call that what it is, which is crazy talk?" Cantor replied, "I don't think it's nice to call anyone crazy." Gregory asked: "Is it a legitimate or an illegitimate issue?" Cantor answered: "I don't think it's an issue that we need to address at all." So Gregory made the case for addressing it: "I feel like there's a lot of Republican leaders who don't want to go as far as to criticize those folks."

Cantor, like Boehner and McConnell, spoke for himself but refused to repudiate the conspiracy theorists. "I think the president's a citizen of the United States," he said. "Why is it that you want me to go and engage in name-calling?"

Yesterday on Meet the Press, Gregory gave Boehner another chance. He showed the speaker a Fox News focus group in which nine of 25 Iowa Republican caucus-goers said Obama was a Muslim. Gregory asked: "As the speaker of the House, as a leader, do you not think it's your responsibility to stand up to that kind of ignorance?"

Boehner replied:

David, it's not my job to tell the American people what to think. Our job in Washington is to listen to the American people. Having said that, the state of Hawaii has said that he was born there. That's good enough for me. The president says he's a Christian. I accept him at his word.

Again, Boehner was answering in terms of his own beliefs. And when Gregory asked him whether the Muslim theory was "nonsense," Boehner softened his affirmation of Obama's version. "I just outlined the facts as I understand them," said Boehner. As to anyone else's beliefs to the contrary, he shrugged, "Listen, the American people have the right to think what they want to think. I can't—it's not my job to tell them."

How about the members of Boehner's own caucus? Is it his job to tell them when they're spreading falsehoods? Gregory asked the speaker:

You had a new Tea Party freshman who was out just yesterday speaking to conservatives, and he said, "I'm fortunate enough to be an American citizen by birth, and I do have a birth certificate to prove it." That was Raul Labrador … a congressman from Idaho. Is that an appropriate way for your members to speak?

Boehner dismissed the comment as probably a joke. But he repeated, "It really is not our job to tell the American people what to believe."

That's four straight interviews in which the country's three top Republicans—the speaker of the House and the GOP leaders in each chamber—have refused to condemn the spreading of lies about Obama's faith and citizenship. These three men are confident enough in the personhood of fetuses to support banning abortion. They're confident enough in the efficacy and justice of the U.S. health care system to block funding of the Affordable Care Act. They're confident enough in Wall Street, despite the recklessness and bailouts of the last three years, to press for repeal of the Dodd-Frank financial regulation law. But ask them whether Obama is a Muslim or was born in the United States, and suddenly they're too humble to impose their beliefs on others. They can only describe "the facts as I understand them." They can only speak "for me." They can only "listen to the American people," not "tell them what to think."

These men aren't leaders. They're followers. To lead a party, much less a country, you have to be able to say no. You have to stand up to liars, lunatics, and dupes on your party's fringe. John McCain did it, in his clumsy way (there's nothing wrong with being a Muslim or Arab), when he was the GOP's presidential nominee. Even Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck have done it. They've called the birther conspiracy theories "bogus," "absurd," and "ridiculous."

Why can't Boehner, Cantor, or McConnell speak that bluntly? Why won't they call a lie a lie? If they want to be leaders, it's time to lead.

Thursday, November 04, 2010

Daily Kos: Why health care repeal just won't happen

Daily Kos: Why health care repeal just won't happen
Mitch McConnell wants to have a one-issue fight for the next two years, convinced that that's what will bring Obama down in 2012. There are a lot of reasons why that won't work, and here are some of the reasons why.
Obama Isn’t Interested in 'Re-litigating' Health Care, Washington Monthly's Steve Benen observes. The president might have said he’s humble in his post-election press conference, but on his signature legislation, he "clearly doesn't seem inclined to budge on this. If Boehner & Co. think Obama will be pushed around on health care, and that with the right leverage, repeal is an option, they're mistaken.”...
Defunding Health Care Isn’t Really an Option, Either, The Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky explains. Boehner and Newt Gingrich have come out in favor of this option, but “that may be easier said than done. As former Senator Tom Daschle explained in a recent interview, ‘a lot of what we did in health care reform has more of an entitlement than a discretionary funding base. So as an entitlement, they would really have to change the law rather than simply not fund in order for it to be effected. The entitlement sections of the legislation are going to be fairly immune from defunding.’"....
And GOP Interest Group Allies Love It, Steve Pizer and Austin Frakt argue at The Incidental Economist. “The Republican base hates health reform because it’s a symbol of Obama. They think it’s a product of the far left, when in fact it’s chock full of Republican ideas. ... When the new Republican House majority starts legislating on health care, they will be more concerned with what the relevant interest groups want. The insurance industry, hospitals, and drug companies want looser regulation and lower taxes. That is, the big players want what they always want–more control over implementation and establishment of favorable regulations–even if it’s at the expense of a more efficient health system for the rest of us. But they also want the mandate, which can’t work without the subsidies and insurance reforms....

Mitch McConnell: Defeat Barack Obama in 2012 - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com

Mitch McConnell: Defeat Barack Obama in 2012 - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com
An emboldened Sen. Mitch McConnell on Thursday will declare that President Barack Obama must be defeated in 2012 because Republicans "can't plan" on the White House to listen to voters and cooperate on some of his party's top political priorities.
“Over the past week, some have said it was indelicate of me to suggest that our top political priority over the next two years should be to deny President Obama a second term in office," the Senate Republican leader plans to tell the conservative Heritage Foundation, according to excerpts of his speech provided to POLITICO.
"But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things is to put someone in the White House who won’t veto any of these things," the Kentucky Republican will say. "We can hope the president will start listening to the electorate after Tuesday’s election. But we can’t plan on it.”
While Democratic leaders said Republicans should be prepared to compromise in order to pass legislation, McConnell will make clear that he wants the administration to "move in our direction" if it wants his party's cooperation.
McConnell's sharpened attack would be a departure from the more collegial tone that some Republican leaders struck in the immediate aftermath of Election Day, where voters returned Republicans back to the House majority and elected six more Senate Republicans, narrowing the Democratic majority in the upper chamber to 53-47.
But McConnell's comments suggest that Obama will face a far more confrontational Senate - particularly if the president doesn't dramatically overhaul his agenda. And the Republican leader suggested that he's prepared to tie up the Senate floor and unite his party against some Democratic bills, which could lead to legislative gridlock and have profound repercussions across the 2012 campaign trail.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

News Analysis - Citizenship From Birth Is Challenged on the Right - NYTimes.com

News Analysis - Citizenship From Birth Is Challenged on the Right - NYTimes.com
At a breakfast on Thursday in Washington, Senator Mitch McConnell, the Senate minority leader, tried to tamp down a controversy that started when Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, questioned the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, which grants the right to citizenship to anyone born in the United States.
“I am not aware of anybody who has come out in favor of altering the 14th Amendment,” Mr. McConnell said.
But Mr. Graham, speaking on Fox News last week, said it was “a mistake” to allow American-born children of illegal immigrants to become citizens automatically, a practice known as birthright citizenship. He said that along with a plan to grant legal status to millions of illegal immigrants, he would also amend the 14th Amendment as a way of discouraging future unauthorized immigration.
Throughout the week Mr. Graham stood firm on his proposal. “We can’t just have people swimming across the river having children here — that’s chaos,” he said Wednesday in another interview with Fox News.
The proposal caught Republican and Democratic lawmakers by surprise, not least because it came from Mr. Graham, who earlier this year was the leading — and almost the only — Republican negotiating with Democrats to create an immigration overhaul bill. Mr. Graham gave new prominence to an issue that has long been a favorite of conservatives advocating reduced immigration, but has been peripheral to the immigration debate in Congress.
Mr. McConnell said Republicans were calling only for hearings on the issue. The debate centers on the first sentence of what is known as the citizenship clause: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.” The amendment was adopted in 1868 to ensure the citizenship of the American-born children of freed slaves.
Opponents of birthright citizenship contend that illegal immigrants are not under United States jurisdiction, therefore their American-born children should not automatically be citizens. They say the amendment could not apply to those immigrants because there was no illegal immigration when it was adopted.
“If you are an illegal immigrant, we clearly have not given you permission to reside here,” said Rosemary Jenks, director of government relations for NumbersUSA, a group that favors decreased immigration. “You are still subject to the jurisdiction of your own country.”
But giving citizenship to everyone born in the United States has been the practice since the 1860s, and was upheld by the Supreme Court on the few occasions when it was tested there, immigration lawyers said. A change to the law to disallow the children of illegal immigrants would vastly increase the undocumented population, lawyers said, rather than reducing it. Babies born to Mexican mothers here illegally, for example, would become illegal Mexican immigrants from the moment of birth.
“You would be perpetuating a large undocumented population, with all these children growing up very much living in the shadows,” said Hiroshi Motomura, an immigration law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
Mr. Graham’s proposal revived a popular misunderstanding: In the often heated debate over birthright citizenship, pundits refer to the problem of “anchor babies,” and talk show callers express frustration that pregnant women could cross the border from Mexico illegally, then rely on their American citizen newborns to put them immediately on a path to citizenship.
In fact, under immigration law American citizen children must wait until they are 21 years old to apply for legal residency for their parents. Also, most of the illegal immigrants who have children who are American citizens have not recently arrived.