2010 Rove Dismisses 2004 Rove’s Deep Concerns About Secret Money In Elections
2010 Rove Dismisses 2004 Rove’s Deep Concerns About Secret Money In Elections
Appearing on CBS’ Face the Nation today, former Bush advisor Karl Rove defended “flooding our politics with money from people who don’t want people to know they’ve contributed,” as host Bob Schieffer put it, saying his Crossroads GPS group and other conservative organizations like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce have a right to spend unlimited amounts of money on this year’s elections without disclosing their donors. The network of special interest groups led by Rove is expecting to raise $250 million to influence this years’ elections, almost all of it from millionaires and billionaires.
But as ThinkProgress reported last week, Rove sang a different tune in 2004 when he said, “I’m against all the 527 ads and activities,” referring to a tax designation of some outside political groups, including his own American Crossroads. “I don’t think they’re fair. I don’t think it’s appropriate. They’re misusing the law. They all ought to stop,” he said at the time. Today, Schieffer confronted Rove with the video ThinkProgress highlighted, asking him, “so why is it that if they were so bad back then that they’re so wholesome now?” Watch it:
Rove responded by saying “I wish we had a different system,” but that his group and the others were merely a response to the “liberal groups” which “have been using undisclosed money for years and years and years and years,” he said, pointing to unions. But as Schieffer and others have noted, unions’ memberships and agendas are well known and public, while the agenda and motives of Rove’s wealthy donors are unclear and hidden. Moreover, Rove ignored the fact that President Obama took a strong stance against secretive outside groups supporting his 2008 campaign, marginalizing Democrat-aligned groups.
But when Scheiffer asked Rove — who at that point had stated that we need “a different system” at least three times — whether he would commit to working towards a stronger campaign finance regime, Rove dodged, declining to commit to anything or say what a “new system” might entail:
SCHEIFFER: If you feel so strongly about it would you pledge this morning that you’ll work to have new campaign laws where we make all of these contributions transparent and we’ll know who is giving them?
ROVE: I’m for a new system, Bob. I’m focused on 2010. Right now I’m focused on trying to level the playing field. When you have an organization that spends $87 million. It’s announced it’s spending $87 million. We’re the big player but we don’t like to boast about it. That’s the amount of disclosure. We’ve tolerated this for decades. The system may need something else.
Rove did pledge, however, that his groups will act as a conduit for billionaires to secretly funnel money into American politics for years to come, saying his Crossroads groups will “serve as a permanent counterweight to the activities of the labor unions and these liberal groups.”
- Comments
- View Comments
Rubio Suggests Undocumented Should Leave U.S. And ‘Try To Enter’ Under Fixed Immigration System
Rubio Suggests Undocumented Should Leave U.S. And ‘Try To Enter’ Under Fixed Immigration System
This morning, Florida senatorial candidates debated on CNN’s State of the Union. When the state’s Republican candidate, Marco Rubio, was specifically asked about what he thinks should be done about the 11-12 million undocumented immigrants currently living in the country, he initially dodged the answer. When pressed, Rubio explained that he supports fixing the legal immigration system so that undocumented immigrants can go back to their home countries and reenter the country legally:
RUBIO: First, I don’t believe we can grant amnesty because I think it’s unfair to people who have entered legally.
MODERATOR: You would send them out of the country?
RUBIO: Well, it’s not that simple. I’ve never advocated that we round people up. I don’t know anyone who’s seriously talking about that. What I said needs to have happen is a legal immigration system that functions. [...]
MODERATOR: You’re still going to have the difficulty of 12 million people here, they don’t have papers. What other than amnesty — call it anything you want — just call it a plan.
RUBIO: You have to have a legal immigration system that works. [...]
MODERATOR: Your plan is that you’re going close the borders, get the electronic system, fix the legal system and then do what?
RUBIO: And then you’ll have a legal immigration system that works and you’ll have people in this country without documents that will be able to return — will be able to leave this country, return to their homeland and try to enter through a system that now functions.
Watch it:
Rubio often reminds his audience that he is a son of immigrants. So it’s surprising that his answer doesn’t take into account what will happen to the millions of U.S.-born children of immigrants who would have to drop their lives in the U.S. and return to their home countries for an unspecified amount of time. He also doesn’t consider the vacant jobs and homes that would be left behind. And though Rubio doesn’t support “rounding people up,” he doesn’t explain how the U.S. government would convince millions of undocumented immigrants to abandon their homes and families and return to their impoverished homeland for an undetermined number of years.
Curiously, Rubio provided a much more tepid answer when he was asked a similar question on the DREAM Act during a debate for Spanish-speaking voters which aired on Univision a few weeks ago. “I want to work on something that allows us in a limited way to accommodate those who are in this country in that predicament through no fault of their own, but have a lot to contribute to our country,” Rubio told Univision’s audience.
The Department of Homeland Security estimated that Florida is home to 720,000 undocumented immigrants as of 2009.
Toomey: ‘It’s Not Clear’ That Extending Bush’s Tax Cuts Would Increase The Deficit
Toomey: ‘It’s Not Clear’ That Extending Bush’s Tax Cuts Would Increase The Deficit
Some Republican Senate candidates have suggested that extending the Bush tax cuts — which are scheduled to expire at the end of the year — will actually be good for the country’s bottom line, as the economic growth that results will more than offset the trillions of dollars in lost revenue. “By extending tax cuts you pay down the deficit, you grow the economy by giving people more money,” said Colorado Republican Ken Buck.
Today, on Fox News Sunday, Pennsylvania’s Republican Senate nominee Pat Toomey joined this club, telling Fox’s Chris Wallace that “it’s not clear” that extending the Bush tax cuts — while also lowering the corporate tax rate — would increase the deficit:
WALLACE: If you extend all the Bush tax cuts, if you were to cut, not eliminate, but cut the corporate tax rate — although that would produce some economic growth and therefore some increased revenues — there no question that would add trillions of dollars to the deficit. The question becomes, what are you going to cut? What are you going to cut in spending, what are you going to cut in entitlements, and I’d ask you to be specific sir.
TOOMEY: Sure. But first of all, it’s not clear that that would add trillions to the deficit, because I really believe that if we expand the base of the economy, which we could do by selectively lowering some taxes, you have a broader base on which to apply the tax.
Watch it:
As American Action Forum president Douglas Holtz-Eakin, who was formerly the Congressional Budget Office director and an adviser to the McCain 2008 presidential campaign, said, “there is no serious research evidence to suggest” that tax cuts pay for themselves. Extending the Bush tax cuts costs more than $3 trillion over ten years, while extending the cuts just for the wealthiest two percent of Americans costs $830 billion over that period.
According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Bush-era tax cuts are one of the largest drivers of the country’s long-term structural deficit. And, contrary to Toomey’s assertion, simply lowering taxes doesn’t broaden the tax base (which is accomplished by removing subsidies, loopholes, and giveaways in the tax code).
Toomey was also wrong to suggest that the Bush tax cuts increased revenue: in 2000, the government collected 10 percent of GDP in personal income taxes, a percentage that has never been collected since the Bush tax cuts. Plus, the historical record of the Bush tax cuts suggests that they won’t create the sort of economic growth that Toomey is counting on. In fact, following the Bush tax cuts, the country “registered the weakest jobs and income growth in the post-war period”:
Overall monthly job growth was the worst of any cycle since at least February 1945, and household income growth was negative for the first cycle since tracking began in 1967. Women reversed employment gains of previous cycles. And for African Americans, the worst job growth on record was matched by an unprecedented increase in poverty.
On a final note, Toomey never did identify anything he would cut from the budget to offset the cost of his budget-busting tax cuts.
Rubio And Crist Say The Iraq War Made America And The World ‘Safer And Better Off’
Rubio And Crist Say The Iraq War Made America And The World ‘Safer And Better Off’
This morning, CNN hosted a debate with Republican, Democratic, and Independent candidates for Florida’s Senate seat, Marco Rubio, Rep. Kendrick Meek, and Gov. Charlie Crist. The three candidates debated a variety of current issues, and highlights included Crist and Rubio stating that they felt that all of the Bush tax cuts should be extended, even those for the wealthiest Americans.
At one point, a CNN moderator asked the candidates if “America is safer and better off for having gone to war in Iraq?” Rubio responded, “I think ultimately yes. First of all, the world is better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge….The world is a safer place not to mention the Iraqi people are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein.”
Meek went next, saying that the “war was based on falsehoods and not on fact” and refused to give a “blanket yes” to the question of whether the world was safer thanks to the war. The congressman continued, “I think we would’ve been better off if we had looked at diplomatic solutions and hadn’t been lied to by the Bush administration.”
Crist then gave the last answer. “I think the world is a safer place because of the action we took in Iraq,” he concluded:
MODERATOR: Mr. Rubio, is America safer and better off for having gone to war in Iraq?
RUBIO: I think ultimately, yes. First of all, the world is better off because Saddam Hussein is no longer in charge. He is no longer in charge of that country. Let’s understand one thing. Right now we’re worrying about Iran possessing a nuclear weapon. If Saddam Hussein was still there you’d have a full-blown arms war the way you’ve seen between Pakistan and India. So the world is a safer place not to mention the Iraqi people are better off than they were under Saddam Hussein. [...]
MODERATOR: Mr. Meek, same question.
MEEK: Well I would tell you this. There was a no-fly zone prior to going to war in Iraq. It was a war based on falsehood and not on fact. And also there are a number of American lives that have been lost. Saying that, those sacrifices that have been made, it’s important to note that the international community needs to continued to be engaged in Iraq. The largest U.S. embassy in the world is in Iraq because of the Bush doctrine. I understand the situation as to the world being safer because we went into Iraq, I couldn’t give you an overall blanket yes on that.
MODERATOR: Do you think we would’ve been better off if we hadn’t gone in?
MEEK: I think we would’ve been better off if we would’ve looked at diplomatic solutions and wouldn’t have been lied to by the Bush administration. I think a number of American lives would’ve been saved and this would be a different world if we would’ve given diplomacy an opportunity.
CRIST: I think the world is a safer place because of the action we took in Iraq.
Watch it:
It is an oddity of American political life that, more than seven years after the Bush administration launched its illegal and disastrous war in Iraq that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people unnecessarily, that major political players are still debating whether or not the war made our country and the world “safer and better off.” Nevertheless, it is important to dismantle the claims put forward by Rubio and Crist.
Rubio displays a hefty ignorance history by claiming that an Iraq under Saddam Hussein would’ve engaged in an arms war like that between India and Pakistan. Ever since the Gulf War, Iraq was under draconian sanctions that reduced its military to levels where it was completely unable to threaten any of its neighbors — and, unfortunately, exacted an enormous human cost on its civilian population. There could have been no arms race because Iraq did not have access to the materials to make them.
Rubio and Crist both claim that the world is a safer place thanks to the war in Iraq. The facts tell very a different story. In 2007, terrorism experts and research fellows at Center on Law and Security at the New York University School of Law Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank conducted a survey of terrorism incidents worldwide since the Bush administration-led U.S. war in Iraq. Their study found that terrorism incidents worldwide increased by seven times, or six hundred percent, since the Bush administration invaded Iraq.
More recently, researchers Robert Pape of the University of Chicago and James Feldman of Air Force Institute of Technology found that, “from 1980-2003, there were 350 suicide attacks in the world, only 15% of which were anti-American.” Yet after the Bush-led war in Iraq, “there have been 1,833 suicide attacks, 92% of which were anti-American.”
Whether is Iraq is “better off” is more of a subjective question, but the level of suffering borne by the Iraqi people suggests they are not. In 2004, a year after the toppling of Saddam Hussein and well-before the spike in levels of violence that started with the sectarian warfare in 2005, Iraqis were 58 times more likely to die a violent death than they were before the invasion. Sectarian tensions and a fragile political system led to Iraq breaking the world’s record for the longest time without a government. Damage to the country’s infrastructure limits Iraqis to an average of five hours of electricity a day, and a recent document dump by the whistleblower organization Wikileaks has uncovered tens of thousands of previously unreported civilian deaths and the widespread use of torture and other brutal military techniques by the Iraqi government. All of this is without noting that hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have lost their lives, entire generations of children have grown under occupation or in sectarian warfare, and millions fled the country. All for the cost of $4-$6 trillion dollars, according to Nobel Prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz.
Vast Stretches Of Oil Still Contaminate The Gulf
Vast Stretches Of Oil Still Contaminate The Gulf
Six months ago, BP’s Deepwater Horizon rig exploded, killing eleven men and beginning an ecological catastrophe that flooded the Gulf of Mexico with approximately five million barrels of oil over the ensuing months. The effort to assess the damage continues, as does the tortuous claims process for the thousands of affected residents. Following news headlines that the oil had “largely disappeared” by August, nearly all of the Gulf waters closed to fishing have been reopened, and the Coast Guard has declared “very little recoverable oil” remains. However, the disaster is not over:
Just three days after the U.S. Coast Guard admiral in charge of the BP oil spill cleanup declared little recoverable surface oil remained in the Gulf of Mexico, Louisiana fishers Friday found miles-long strings of weathered oil floating toward fragile marshes on the Mississippi River delta.
New Orleans Times-Picayune photojournalist Matt Hinton confirmed the sightings in an overflight of Louisiana’s West Bay:
Because of the disaster, BP’s third quarter profit was only $4.6 billion.
GOP House Candidate Jesse Kelly Says ‘It’s Our Job To Protect Ourselves’ From Salmonella Outbreaks
GOP House Candidate Jesse Kelly Says ‘It’s Our Job To Protect Ourselves’ From Salmonella Outbreaks
Although there are a diverse set of political beliefs in the United States, there are currently two major political philosophies clashing for control of the American body politic. One, the progressive view, believes in a society where a democratically elected government plays an active role in helping all people achieve the American Dream, no matter who they are. The other, the conservative vision, believes in the on-your-own-society that favors the wealthy, big corporations, and other privileged sectors of society.
GOP House candidate Jesse Kelly, who is running in Arizona’s 8th congressional district, championed this second vision a week ago at a campaign rally hosted by the Pima County Tea Party Patriots. During a question-and-answer period, a voter asked Kelly about the recent salmonella outbreak, which led to recall of more than half a billion eggs.
The voter asked if Kelly, if elected, would he help pass a law that would allow the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and other government agencies to shut down companies that have too many safety violations, such as the companies that allowed millions of eggs that sickened people to be sold to the public. Kelly responded that he doesn’t “believe what we’re lacking right now is more regulations on companies,” complaining that “you could probably spit on the grass and get arrested by the federal government by now.” When the voter followed up by asking, “Who’s protecting us?” Kelly responded, “It’s our job to protect ourselves.” The exasperated voter asked once more, “Am I supposed to go to a chicken farmer and say I’d like you to close down because all of your birds are half dead?” Kelly once more answered, “There’s a new thing that comes along every day. But I know this: Every part of our economy that is regulated by the government doesn’t have fewer disasters, it has more”:
QUESTIONER: Given the salmonella outbreaks that we have seen every three weeks, with the chicken industry, with pesticides and what not that they put onto spinach in order to get the salmonella. We have rules and regulations. However there is no rule mandating that they be enforced. Is there some way when you’re in Congress that you’ll have a bill passed that says instead of having companies voluntarily change, mandate that they must change or give them the ability to shut ‘em down and that goes for mining companies or anyone who has hundreds of violations against ‘em.
KELLY: Here’s the thing with that point, that’s the first time I’ve ever had that question. Congratulations on being unique. First shot out of the box, no ma’am. I do not believe that what we’re lacking right now is a lack of regulations on business. [...] You could literally go spit on the grass and get arrested by the federal government if you wanted to right now. [...] More regulation, more federal control, giving Nancy Pelosi more power, is not the solution right now.
QUESTIONER: Who’s protecting us?
KELLY: That’s the thing, ma’am, it’s our job to protect ourselves. Because no one else is going to look out for your best interests except for you. [...]
QUESTIONER: Am I supposed to go to a chicken farmer and say I’d like you to close down because all of your birds are half dead?
KELLY: I’ve not heard a lot about that recently, obviously there’s a new thing that comes along every day. But I know this, every portion of our economy that is heavily regulated doesn’t have fewer disasters, it has more.
Watch it:
Unfortunately, this is not the first time that Kelly attacked the FDA and advocated that people would be better off if no one was helping protect them from security hazards like diseased eggs which are very difficult for the average person to detect.
At a Rotary Club meeting earlier this month, the candidate said he wanted to “reduce the [FDA] as much as humanly possible,” claiming that we want to “blame the evil pharmaceutical companies” because drugs cost too much, and that we shouldn’t “spend our time blaming big business” (ignoring that the drug industry’s political clout over the FDA is the real problem).
Right-Wing ‘Journalists’ At Secret Koch Meeting Make A Living Defending Unlimited Corporate Political Money
Right-Wing ‘Journalists’ At Secret Koch Meeting Make A Living Defending Unlimited Corporate Political Money
Earlier this week, ThinkProgress revealed documents pertaining to a secret election-planning meeting convened by the right-wing billionaires David and Charles Koch of the $120 billion dollar conglomerate Koch Industries. The Koch Meeting included powerful executives from the health insurance, coal, manufacturing, banking, and pharmaceutical industry, as well as the top lobbyist from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which represents large corporations like AIG and Wal-Mart. One of the most startling revelations about the June 2010 event, as Salon’s Joe Conason noted, was the fact that conservative media stars “Krauthammer, Ponnuru, Barone, Moore and Beck were flown out to Aspen, lodged in luxury accommodations, and presumably paid a handsome honorarium by Koch to entertain and enlighten the would-be saviors of the Republic.” Conason asked, “So where are the guardians of media integrity, who made so much noise about the innocuous jawing of the liberals on Journolist?”
Not only did Koch invite many prominent right-wing media stars, he also invited supposedly objective journalists to his political strategy confab. Many of the journalists at the Koch Meeting have actually made a living for themselves accepting large sums of money from Koch Meeting participants, then parroting talking points promoting corporate control of American democracy:
“Journalist” Michael Barone
– Barone’s Koch Meeting Money: Barone is a Resident Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute — a think tank/trade association well represented at the Koch Meeting — which according to its 990 tax forms, compensates fellows in the $100,000-range. Right-wing billionaire Phil Anschutz, a Koch Meeting participant, owns and subsidizes the Washington Examiner, where Barone is a paid contributor. Earlier this year, Barone was given the “Bradley Prize,” a $250,000 no-strings-attached gift just for being a loyal conservative. Several Koch Meeting businessmen are active with the Bradley Foundation, and Koch Meeting participant Dennis Kuester, a retired bank executive, helped select Barone for the gift. The Bradley Foundation, managed by former Republican National Committee counsel Michael Grebe, is endowed with nearly $500 million dollars from the wealth of deceased industrialist Harry Bradley, a proud John Birch Society member who came under fire for systematically discriminating against African Americans and women in his factories.
– Barone’s Reflexive Defense Of Koch, Secret Corporate Money: Barone enjoys wide distribution of his views through a paid punditry position at Fox News and a syndicated column through Human Events, the Washington Examiner, National Review, and other publications. And Barone has used his media platform to willingly distort ThinkProgress’ investigation of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s foreign fundraising, while also praising the influence of secret corporate money in the 2010 elections. Dismissing the influence of secret corporate cash (like his own), Barone scoffed at “Obamaites” for conjuring a “19th-century caricatures of fat cats.” Barone often uses his columns to mock the poor, and assists his benefactors by sliming financial and clean energy reform.
“Journalist” Tim Carney
– Carney’s Koch Meeting Money: Carney, a “libertarian” writer who defends the right of the fossil fuel industry to emit carbon pollution for free, has attacked ThinkProgress for highlighting his role at the Koch Meeting. In a piece this week, Carney gave full “disclosure” that he only occasionally speaks at Koch-funded dinners at the Koch-funded Institute for Humane Studies, and that his presence at the Koch Meeting was merely to scold the corporate executives about America’s bailout culture. In fact, in addition to being gainfully employed by billionaire Koch Meeting industrialist Phil Anschutz, Carney has received $50,000 from the Koch-funded ISI Enterprise Award, $50,000 from the Koch-funded Phillips Foundation, and was previously a fellow at the Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute, an aggressive front group that defends polluters.
– Carney’s Reflexive Defense Of Koch, Secret Corporate Money: Carney has vigorously defended Koch’s political giving, and the right for corporations to exploit Citizens United for unlimited, undisclosed political contributions. Although he postures as an enemy of bailouts and government subsidies, Carney ignores the fact that his Koch Industries benefactors used their conservative “movement” donations to encourage the Bush Justice Department to largely dismiss $350 million in fines for leaking carcinogenic benzene, or that Koch leveraged its relationship with the Bush administration to take control of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, or that Koch begged the Alaskan government for a bailout of one of its refineries.
“Journalist” Stephen Moore
– Moore’s Koch Meeting Money: Moore is subsidized through “fellowships” and “senior fellow” positions at a number of Koch-funded groups, including the Cato Institute and the Goldwater Institute, while actually leading Koch Meeting-aligned groups like the Free Enterprise Fund. In an interview with Charles Koch for the Wall Street Journal, Moore disclosed that Koch has underwritten organizations Moore is involved in, although he did not specify which ones.
– Moore’s Reflexive Defense Of Koch, Secret Corporate Money: Moore, who also serves as a pundit on CNBC and Fox News, is best known for his role as an editorial board member of the Wall Street Journal. The Wall Street Journal editorial board has been a constant defender of Koch Industries and of unlimited, secret corporate money in American elections.
Other journalists at the meeting are also on the Koch Meeting payroll. The Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer — who spoke at the Koch Meeting’s mountaintop dinner on “What’s Ahead for America?” — is also a recipient of the $250,000 Bradley Prize gift and sits on the board of other groups funded by the Koch Meeting network. While no one outside the 9/12 “movement” views hate-talker and Koch Meeting participant Glenn Beck as a serious journalist, will the media scrutinize the ties of Barone, Moore, or Carney to their corporate benefactors?
‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Is Fueled By Foreign Oil
‘U.S.’ Chamber Of Commerce Is Fueled By Foreign Oil
The United States Chamber of Commerce is running an unprecedented $75 million campaign to unseat progressives from Congress, in defense of a big-oil agenda. As a ThinkProgress investigation has learned Chamber’s donors — who send their checks to the same account from which the political campaign is run — include multinational oil corporations, and even oil companies owned by the Kingdom of Bahrain. The oil-fueled Chamber has hammered candidates who voted to limit our dependence on oil, falsely claiming they supported a “job-killing energy tax” (like Rep. Paul Hodes (D-NH), Rep Joe Sestak (D-PA), Rep. Betsy Markey (D-CO), Rep. Alan Grayson (D-FL), and Rep. Harry Teague (D-NM)).
The Chamber has repeatedly questioned the science behind climate change, even calling for a “Scopes monkey trial” in 2009. Numerous companies, including Apple, Exelon, PNM Resources, PG&E, and PSEG, quit the Chamber because of their reactionary opposition to climate legislation, determined by right-wing board members like coal giants Massey, Peabody, and Consol. Multinational oil companies BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil, Hess, and Shell Oil fund the Chamber of Commerce through its Business Civic Leadership Council. The Chamber’s anti-clean-energy agenda serves not only domestic coal barons and oil majors, but also the following foreign oil and coal companies, who are some of the dozens of foreign corporations that pay member dues to the Chamber of Commerce’s 501c(6) account, which is used to fund its political ads:
– Avantha Group, India (at least $7,500 in annual member dues): power plants
– The Bahrain Petroleum Company, Kingdom of Bahrain ($5,000): state-owned oil campany
– Gulf Petrochemical Industries Company, Kingdom of Bahrain ($5,000): state-owned oil company
– Essar Group, Mumbai, India ($7,500): oil & gas, coal power
– GMR, Bangalore, India ($15,000): coal power, mining
– Hinduja Group, London, UK ($15,000): the Gulf Oil group
– Jindal Power, New Delhi, India ($15,000): coal power
– Lahmeyer International, Frankfurt, Germany ($7,500): power plant engineering
– Punj Lloyd, Gurgaon, India ($15,000): offshore pipelines
– Reliance Industries, Mumbai, India ($15,000): oil and gas, petrochemicals
– SNC Lavalin, Montreal, Canada ($7,500): mining, power plant, and oil & gas engineering
– Tata Group, Mumbai, India ($15,000): power plants, oil & gas
– Walchandnagar Industries, Mumbai, India ($7,500): power plant, oil & gas engineering
– Welspun, Mumbai, India ($7,500): oil & gas exploration
“To secure America’s long-term energy security, America must reexamine outdated and entrenched positions, become better informed about the sources of our fuel and power, and make judgments based on facts, sound science, and good American common sense,” the Chamber argues. America will be insecure as long as the Chamber is spreading lies about science and energy supported by foreign polluter cash.
Cross-posted on The Wonk Room.
Local Connecticut Chamber Weighing Whether To Break With ‘U.S.’ Chamber
Local Connecticut Chamber Weighing Whether To Break With ‘U.S.’ Chamber
The Greater Mystic Chamber of Commerce in southern Connecticut is currently in discussions about whether to break from the ‘U.S.’ Chamber over disagreements about the national Chamber’s involvement in politics.
Chamber Executive Director Tricia Cunningham said her organization, which currently pays dues to the national Chamber, has disagreements over the U.S. Chamber’s use of millions of corporate dollars this election season to lobby and advertise on national issues:
“At a recent board meeting,” Cunningham said, “we did have a conversation about the U.S. Chamber after learning of their recent political advertisements, and we are evaluating our relationship with the organization. We do not necessarily condone or support the views of the U.S. Chamber.”
That lack of transparency can be confusing, said Cunningham. “Because we are a small local chamber, sometimes people assume our views would be the same” as the national chamber, when they’re not, she said, adding, “But we’re happy to clarify that.”
Tony Sheridan, president and chief executive officer of the Chamber of Commerce of Eastern Connecticut, said his organization broke off its relationship with the U.S. Chamber last year. Sheridan said plainly, “My issue with the national chamber is their willingness to take a very narrow slice of a piece of complicated legislation – and it’s generally the most negative spin they’re taking, like health care, when we all know that the health-care system is broken – and claim that the sky is falling, instead of using the money to educate people.”
Since ThinkProgress first reported on the Chamber’s receipt of foreign funds (which go into the same general account that funds the Chamber’s right-wing partisan attack ads), a number of local chambers have publicly broken from the national organization.
Last week, the Greater Hudson Chamber of Commerce in New Hampshire announced it is leaving the U.S. Chamber because it does not want to be associated with the national Chamber’s political ads in favor of Republican candidates. And in Virginia, the local Charlottesville Regional Chamber of Commerce has refused to endorse the political attack ads that the national Chamber is running in its area to defeat Rep. Tom Perriello (D-VA).
Conservative defenders of the Chamber like to intentionally conflate the local chambers with the national Chamber, hoping the popularity of the independent locally-run Chambers will disguise the national Chamber’s right-wing activities. The U.S. Chamber also attempts to present itself as an organization the represents mom and pop local businesses. In reality, as the New York Times noted this week, it is funded mostly by a small number of large multi-national corporations.
GOP House Candidate Mike Kelly: ‘There’s Stuff To Be Cut. What Is It? I Can’t Tell You.’
GOP House Candidate Mike Kelly: ‘There’s Stuff To Be Cut. What Is It? I Can’t Tell You.’
ThinkProgress filed this report from Meadville, PA.
During a debate Thursday night, Pennsylvania House GOP candidate Mike Kelly was asked by the moderator to name “specific” cuts he would make to the federal budget. Kelly clearly understood the question, since he repeated the word “specific” in his response no less than 8 times.
But despite mentioning the word “specific,” there was nothing actually specific in Kelly’s response. Eight times Kelly rebuffed his own insistence that he would address the issue “very specifically.” His excuses ran the gamut, from “let me get there and I’ll figure it out” to “I can’t tell you,” and from “the specificity is in the process” to “I’d tear it apart”:
MODERATOR: Projections suggest that our national debt is approaching $14 trillion. Recent media reports suggest candidates across the country, from both parties, have been very vague about what they would do about the debt. Let’s break that trend and look at some specifics here. […] Could you please tell us what specific savings; where would you find massive cuts in the federal budget?
KELLY: Sure, I’ll address that, and I’ll address it very specifically. The specifics – the specificity – is in the process. When Gov. Christie got elected in New Jersey, they asked him the same question; he says “let me get there and I’ll figure it out. Let me just do this.” Because as a businessperson, you have to look every month at what you do. You have to look at the things that work and the things that didn’t work. You have to determine whether that’s the right course to be on or not be on.
And I’m always intrigued when people say, “specifically, what would you do?” Here, specifically, what would I do? I’d tear it apart. I’d tear it apart. I would want to look at every bit of our spending budget. Does it work or does it not work? Is it something we can improve on? Is it something we should redeploy those funds? Absolutely, there’s stuff to be cut. What is it right now? I can’t tell you. [...]
So I think we have the wrong point of view here. Specifically what would you do? Specifically, what I would do? I would be the most responsible legislator who’s out there. I would measure twice and cut once. I would look at every expense and is it performing the way it’s supposed to perform, or this just another one of those government programs that has an endless life that we just keep adding and adding and adding. So the specificness of it is getting people there that are responsible, that have skin in the game and that have sweat [inaudible], that understand what it means to make payments out of your own pocket, not the taxpayer’s. That’s a very sacred duty, that’s the way we would approach this.
Watch it:
Of course, Kelly is not alone in his refusal to give specific ways he would cut the federal budget. Just last week, California Senate nominee Carly Fiorina (R) was asked by Chris Wallace seven separate times which expenditures she would cut, only to rebuff the Fox News Sunday host each time. As ThinkProgress has noted, decrying the federal budget deficit while simultaneously offering no specific solutions to reduce it has quickly become a rite of passage for GOP candidates this election.
West Complains About Number Of District’s Uninsured Yet Wants To Deny 60,000 Residents Health Insurance
West Complains About Number Of District’s Uninsured Yet Wants To Deny 60,000 Residents Health Insurance
Earlier this month, GOP congressional candidate Allen West spoke at an outdoor rally to voters in Florida’s 22nd congresional district. He covered a number of issues, including his opposition to tax increases on the wealthiest Americans, his desire to reduce the federal deficit, and what he views as the progressive attack “on the values of this nation.”
At one point, West cited Census Bureau numbers that show that Florida’s 22nd congressional district has the second-highest number of uninsured residents in the country. West then asked the audience, “Are you going to send Ron Klein back to give you more of that?”:
WEST: The Census Bureau put out statistics this week that said congressional district 22 has the highest number, second highest number of uninsured Americans in the country. Are you going to send Ron Klein back to give you more of that? That’s the question you have to ask.
Watch it:
West is rightly outraged about the number of uninsured people in his district. The truth is, the United States lags significantly behind other industrialized countries in access to quality health care and serious reforms continue to be needed.
The problem with West’s statement is that he is actively advocating policies that would increase the number of uninsured people in the district he seeks to represent. On his campaign website the candidate proudly proclaims his desire to repeal the new health care reform law, complaining that it is a “government takeover of healthcare, complete with an exploding bureaucracy and massive tax increases.” In doing so, he offers no meaningful alternative, with health care not even listed as an issue on his campaign site. Congress’s health care bill will extend coverage to 60,000 of the district’s uninsured residents when it is fully implemented, meaning that West is effectively advocating for kicking tens of thousands of his district’s own residents off their health insurance while complaining about the high number of uninsured there.
Support For Veterans Shows Sharp Partisan Divide
Support For Veterans Shows Sharp Partisan Divide
According to an analysis by the nonpartisan Iraq & Afghanistan Veterans of America Action Fund, Republicans in Congress have dramatically failed to support our troops after they come home. IAVA’s 2010 Veteran Report Card, based on the key veterans’ legislation that came to a vote during the 111th Congress, exposed a sharp partisan divide on the level of support for Iraq and Afghanistan veterans, as MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow tabulated yesterday. Of the 94 elected officials that earned an A or A+ rating from IAVA, 91 were Democrats. Of the 154 officials who received a D or F, 142 were Republicans:
Maddow also noted that U.S. Senate candidates Sharron Angle (R-NV) and Ken Buck (R-CO) have called for the privatization of the Veterans Affairs hospital system, even though it provides the best quality of care in America, as our veterans deserve. Watch the segment:
Revealed: More Corporate Donations To The U.S. Chamber’s Partisan Attack Fund
Revealed: More Corporate Donations To The U.S. Chamber’s Partisan Attack Fund
Today, the New York Times builds on research published by ThinkProgress by noting that the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is mostly funded by a small group of large corporations. The Chamber has tried to lie about its identity for years, absurdly telling the media that it represents 3 million businesses. Then after being caught with no proof of such membership, it modified that number to 300,000 — but then claimed small businesses were the true driver of the Chamber’s member rolls. But the Times correctly points out that in 2008, the Chamber received the bulk of its donations from only 45 companies, including firms like Goldman Sachs, Edward Jones, Alpha Technologies, Chevron Texaco and Aegon.
Many corporations pay regular dues to the Chamber, but pitch in more during election cycles or particular lobbying campaigns. For instance, on top of its regular $100,000 commitment of yearly dues, health insurance giant Aetna joined other health insurers to funnel $20 million to the Chamber to kill health reform. Similarly, Fox News parent company News Corporation gave an additional $1 million to the Chamber for its attack campaign this midterm election. While ThinkProgress forced the Chamber to acknowledge that it receives foreign funds to its 501(c)(6) account used for attack ads, the Chamber refuses to disclose any of its other donors or how exactly it funds its nasty attack ads. Using public corporate records, ThinkProgress has found more dues-paying members of the Chamber. The numbers below reflect a bare minimum, and in many cases these corporations have paid ten times the amount of their regular dues to the Chamber in the past two years:
– Microsoft’s corporate disclosures state that the company paid the Chamber up to $999,999 in 2009 and up to $999,999 in 2010 in its minimum dues.
– Procter and Gamble paid the Chamber $3.2 million in 2009.
– Outsourcing giant CSC, which specializes in IT outsourcing, paid the Chamber at least $100,000 in 2009 and $100,000 in 2010.
– Intel paid the Chamber at least $100,000 in yearly dues ($100,000 in 2010, and what appears to be $100,000 in 2009).
– Drug company Merck paid the Chamber $234,000 in 2008, and still counts itself as a dues-paying member of the Chamber.
– Utility company Dominion Resources gave the Chamber $100,000 in 2009.
– On the Chamber’s Egypt Business Council website, Apache Corporation, British American Tobacco, The Blackstone Group, The Boeing Company, Cargill USA, CitiGroup, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, Google, Microsoft Corporation, PepsiCo, Intel Corporation, Monsanto Company, Pfizer Inc, Philip Morris International combined committed an additional $375,000 to the Chamber for 2009-2010.
Earlier this year, U.S. Chamber of Commerce CEO Tom Donohue admitted to ThinkProgress that CitiGroup, a bailed out financial conglomerate that still has not paid back taxpayer TARP funds, is a dues-paying member of the Chamber. Many bailed out banks are in fact dues-paying members of the Chamber. A Huffington Post crowd-sourced study of the Chamber found that there are dozens of other large corporations that have indicated membership in the Chamber, but have refused to confess their level of involvement. The Chamber has shilled for BP, and Donohue said after BP’s spill that taxpayers should pay for the clean up. Indeed, BP admitted membership, but has not disclosed how much they pay to the Chamber.
As a ThinkProgress investigation found, at least 80 foreign businesses have been paying the Chamber at least $885,000 in yearly dues for the last two years. The money went directly to the Chamber’s 501(c)(6), the same account the Chamber is now using to run a $75 million attack campaign against Democrats. As we have shown, many of the foreign corporations have a direct stake in American public policy; for instance the Chamber has been the most vigorous lobbying operation in DC to promote outsourcing of American jobs. Of course, many other corporation join the Chamber to benefit from its right-wing corporate lobbying campaign, like keeping corporate tax loopholes open (Chamber members CitiGroup, ExxonMobil and Bank of America already paid no corporate income taxes last year) and maintaining the status quo on energy policy so the fossil fuel industry can emit carbon pollution free of charge.
Right After Calling For Social Security Privatization, GOP Senate Candidate Claims To Oppose Privatization
Right After Calling For Social Security Privatization, GOP Senate Candidate Claims To Oppose Privatization
A slew of Republican Senate candidates have recently tried to dress up their support for Social Security privatization as something else entirely, denying that they support privatization while continuing to advocate for the creation of private Social Security accounts that could be invested in the markets. Pennsylvania Republican Pat Toomey, Ohio Republican Rob Portman, Arkansas Republican John Boozman, and Colorado Republican Ken Buck have all said they oppose privatization, while simultaneously advocating for private accounts. Oregon’s Republican Senate nominee, law professor Jim Huffman, became the latest to join this club during a debate last night with Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), asserting that he hasn’t argued for privatizing Social Security, literally one sentence after calling for the creation of private accounts:
I have argued for allowing newcomers to the Social Security system to have the option of private accounts. I have not argued for privatizing the Social Security system. There’s nothing in the record that would uphold that argument.
Watch it:
This is all part and parcel of the concerted conservative campaign to change the terms — but not the policy prescriptions — of Social Security privatization. Privatization polls badly, so conservatives want to change the word, but not the idea. As the Wonk Room explained, the fact remains that creating private Social Security accounts would impose new risks on seniors, force new administrative costs and benefit reductions, and wouldn’t even set Social Security on a path to solvency.
Oregon GOP Senate Nominee Calls For Defense Cuts, Citing ‘Vast Amount Of Money Wasted In Defense’
Oregon GOP Senate Nominee Calls For Defense Cuts, Citing ‘Vast Amount Of Money Wasted In Defense’
Last night, Oregon’s U.S. Senate candidates Sen. Ron Wyden (D) and Republican Jim Huffman debated a variety of issues. Highlights from the debate include Huffman’s advocacy for extending all the Bush tax cuts and Wyden arguing in favor of ending tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas.
At one point during the debate, the moderators asked the nominees about their stance on funding the National Guard and other defense programs. Both agreed that giving adequate funding to the National Guard was important to the state of Oregon. Interestingly, Huffman criticized members of Congress for “constantly lobbying to keep bases open or military installations open or [military] funding in their states just because it’s funding in their state.” He added that he has “no doubt there’s a vast amount of money wasted in defense” and advocated for taking “a very sharp pencil to looking at the defense budget,” because he believes “Dwight Eisenhower was right when he said there was a military industrial complex, and this continues to be a problem we have to deal with”:
HUFFMAN: I, too would be a strong supporter of the National Guard, I think it’s a very critical part of the community and of the state. As for funding I think it has to be part of a larger examination of military funding in this country. I think it’s a mistake as we found way back we found before the base closure act to have members of Congress constantly lobbying to keep bases open or military installations open or funding in their states just because its funding in their state, it needs to be part of a comprehensive national review of how we spend money in defense. I have no doubt there’s a vast amount of money wasted in defense, but at the same time I think it’s the most important thing the federal government does, and it has to be something it does all over the country. So I would be a very strong supporter of the National Guard but I’d also take a very sharp pencil to looking at the defense budget, because I think Dwight Eisenhower was right when he said there was a military industrial complex, and this continues to be a problem we have to deal with.
Watch it:
Huffman’s statement makes him at least the fifth Republican running for Senate who has gone on the record as saying that defense cuts are necessary in order to deal with the budget deficit and tackle waste in government. Earlier this week, Pennsylvania candidate Pat Toomey criticized Congress for voting for “programs the Pentagon doesn’t even want.” Last week, Illinois candidate Mark Kirk said we need “across the board” reductions in defense spending. Earlier this month, Sen. Johnny Isakson (GA) told a local news station that reducing the deficit “begins with the Department of Defense.” A few days later, Kentucky candidate Rand Paul criticized Republicans for exempting the military from waste-trimming, telling PBS’s Gwen Ifill that cutting defense spending “has to be on the table.” All of these candidates are stating positions in direct opposition to the GOP’s much-touted “Pledge To America,” which explicitly exempts the Department of Defense from waste-cutting.
If these Republicans are really serious about reining in the defense budget, they can look to The Sustainable Defense Task (SDTF) report released earlier this year. The SDTF — which comprises Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) and some of the nation’s leading defense and budget experts — identified nearly $1 trillion in waste that can be cut from the defense budget over the next ten years simply by eliminating outdated Cold War-era programs. They could also reference a recent report by CAP experts Lawrence Korb and Laura Conley that lays out $108 billion in defense cuts in the current 2015 budget forecast.
Rove In 2004: Influence Of ‘Billionaires Who Write The Checks Give Me Some Concern’
Rove In 2004: Influence Of ‘Billionaires Who Write The Checks Give Me Some Concern’
Last night on NBC’s Nightly News, Michael Isikoff reported that a network of special interest money led by Karl Rove is “expecting to raise $250 million to flood the airwaves in these last few weeks of the election.” Rove has been able to raise all of this money from millionaires and billionaires by promising them anonymity.
In 2004, Rove benefited from a similar avalanche of outside money in his quest to help secure President Bush’s re-election. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were funded in part by Texas homebuilder Bob Perry, who is now funding Rove’s new group. The Swift Boat group, which operated as a 527, received over $20 million in donations to air television ads that smeared the war record of Sen. John Kerry (D-MA).
After the 2004 election concluded, Rove was asked how he felt about the impact of outside groups spending millions of dollars to shape the outcome of elections. Echoing a line offered by many Democrats today, Rove said the potential for a few wealthy contributors to tip the electoral balance was a concern and could potentially undermine democracy:
Rove said the 527s — named for the section of the tax code they are formed under — potentially undermine democracy by allowing a few wealthy individuals to spend tens of millions of dollars under less stringent disclosure requirements than before campaign laws were overhauled more than two years ago. These groups, first exploited by Democrats and later joined by Republicans, existed because of a huge loophole in the new law.
Democratic donors, led by at least $27 million from billionaire George Soros, funded such anti-Bush groups as America Coming Together and the Media Fund. Republican leaders originally thought these groups would be prohibited by the Federal Election Commission but when they were not, GOP activists joined the 527 parade late in the campaign. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which ran ads attacking Kerry’s Vietnam War service and anti-war activities, were the most notable of these groups on Bush’s side.
Rove condemned them all.
“I am a firm believer in strong (political) parties, and things that weaken the parties and place the outcome of elections in the hands of billionaires who can write checks and political consultants who can get themselves hired by billionaires who write the checks, give me some concern,” Rove said.
Of course, these days Rove isn’t as big a believer in strong political parties, as he works to build a “shadow RNC.” He also isn’t as concerned about the subversion of democracy at the hands of a few wealthy donors. Instead, when President Obama makes the argument that Rove did in 2004, the Rove of 2010 slams him for having an “enemies list” and engaging in a “desperate political ploy.”
O'REILLY: OK. Do you think the swift boat vets' charges against Kerry are unfair? BUSH: I think that these ads -- first of all, I said clearly, all these ads, these 527s, with billionaires funding campaigns, ought to be gone.
ROVE: Look, I'm against all the 527 ads and activities. I don't think they're fair. I don't think it's appropriate. They're misusing the law. They all ought to stop.
After Chamber Spends Big On His Behalf, Mike Kelly Announces Support For Corporate Tax Loopholes
After Chamber Spends Big On His Behalf, Mike Kelly Announces Support For Corporate Tax Loopholes
ThinkProgress filed this report from Meadville, PA.
Last night, Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper (D) and Mike Kelly (R) sparred for 70 minutes in a debate held at Allegheny College. One of the major issues raised was the abundance of outside expenditures in Pennsylvania’s third congressional district, largely in support of Kelly and against Dahlkemper. Indeed, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has spent approximately $250,000 attacking Dahlkemper on Kelly’s behalf.
It is little surprise then that when asked about his vision for the role of government, Kelly vehemently defended tax loopholes for corporations that outsource American jobs, an issue near-and-dear to the Chamber’s heart. Despite the fact that over 12,000 jobs in PA-03 have been shipped overseas since 1994, Kelly gave his full-throated support for corporate tax loopholes that encourage outsourcing:
MODERATOR: I have a simple question, but it’s very direct. What do you believe the role of government is? [...]
KELLY: I would say the role of government is to [inaudible]. I really think that when we talk about what’s happening in this country, a government – and I really mean this because this is the problem – a government that is so overregulating, so intrusive, so overtaxing. And then by the same token, you say, “well, we just want to eliminate the tax loopholes.” Why do you think these businesses are leaving this country? They’re being penalized to stay here! We have to level the playing field. [...]
Watch here (Kelly begins at 0:44):
Dahlkemper, who has been on the receiving end of the Chamber’s attack ads, was incensed that the group could play such a major role in the race without disclosing its sources of funding, especially after it was revealed that some of that money comes from foreign companies. The congresswoman decried the fact that “foreign interests [were] trying to influence our elections” and called for an FEC investigation into the Chamber’s funding. Dahlkemper is joined by many others who support a formal investigation, including Sen. Al Franken (D-MN), Reps. Steve Driehaus (D-OH) and Mary Jo Kilroy (D-OH), and OH-18 GOP nominee Bob Gibbs. Watch it:
Juan Williams Admits His Fear Of Muslims On Airplanes Is Irrational
Juan Williams Admits His Fear Of Muslims On Airplanes Is Irrational
A lot of media noise has resulted from news that NPR fired Juan Williams for making a bigoted remark that he gets “worried” and “nervous” when he sees Muslims in their “garb” on airplanes. Williams’ defenders have blown the issue way out of proportion, with some falsely claiming he was either taken out of context or that the situation somehow mirrors Andrew Breitbart’s gross mischaracterization of comments made by former USDA employee Shirley Sherrod, a comparison that, as Media Matters noted, “just doesn’t make sense.”
In fact, Williams stood by his remark while discussing his sacking on Fox News yesterday. He complained that he got fired for being honest and that his comments were not bigoted. But what seems to be getting lost in the clamor is that — regardless of the intent of Williams’ conversation about Muslims — his comments about Muslims on airplanes are misplaced and bigoted. As the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent correctly observed, “The problem…is that in his initial comments he didn’t clarify that the instinctual feeling itself is irrational and ungrounded, and something folks need to battle against internally whenever it rears its head.” But today on ABC’s Good Morning America, Williams finally acknowledged that his comments were indeed “irrational”:
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: I guess some people are wondering, should you have gone the extra step and said, “Listen, they’re irrational, they are feelings I fight?”
WILLIAMS: Yeah, I could have done that. In fact, I think it’s very important to sort of parse this. What I said was, that if I’m at the gate at an airport and I see people who are in Muslim garb who are first and foremost identifying themselves as Muslims and in the aftermath of 9/11, I am taken aback, I have a moment of fear and it is visceral, it’s a feeling and I don’t say, “I’m not getting on the plane.” I don’t say, “You must go through additional security.” I don’t say I want to discriminate against these people, no such thing occurs. So to me, it was admitting that I have this notion, this feeling in the immediate moment.
Watch it:
Last night, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow cut through the distorted media chatter on Williams’ firing to put it in the right context. Maddow noted that targeting Muslims “has been a Fox News specialty for a long time now,” and that the other important side of this story is that Fox News handsomely rewarded Williams with a $2 million contract for his Islamophobia. (Ironically, in abetting O’Reilly’s conspiracy theory that George Soros may have been behind his firing at NPR, Williams said, “Money talks. He is a puppeteer.”)
Maddow then knocked down the right-wing canard that Wiliams’ free speech rights have been violated:
MADDOW: Let’s be clear here. This is not a First Amendment issue. … The First Amendment does not guarantee you a paid job as a commentator to say what you want. Your employment as a person paid to speak is at the pleasure of your employer. In this case, it displeased Juan Williams’ employer, at least one of them, for him to have reassured the Fox News audience he too is afraid of Muslims on airplanes and that’s not a bigoted thing. … And so, Juan Williams lost that job. This is not a First Amendment issue. This is an issue of what your employer is OK with.
Watch the segment:
Read more about the story behind Juan Williams firing in today’s Progress Report.
Republican House Candidate Calls For Violent Government Overthrow If GOP Loses Election
Republican House Candidate Calls For Violent Government Overthrow If GOP Loses Election
Stephen Broden, a “constitutionalist pastor” from Texas who won the Republican nomination for Texas’ 30th Congressional District, made a vaguely threatening statement at a Tea Party event last year. He described the federal government as “tyrannical” and said that “we have a constitutional remedy. And the Framers say if that don’t work, revolution.”
Yesterday, a political reporter for WFAA in Dallas-Fort Worth asked Broden to explain whether he was actually calling for violence against the federal government. After a “prolonged back-and-forth,” Broden said a violent overthrow is “on the table”:
“If the government is not producing the results or has become destructive to the ends of our liberties, we have a right to get rid of that government and to get rid of it by any means necessary,” Broden said, adding the nation was founded on a violent revolt against Britain’s King George III.
Watson asked if violence would be in option in 2010, under the current government.
“The option is on the table. I don’t think that we should remove anything from the table as it relates to our liberties and our freedoms,” Broden said, without elaborating. “However, it is not the first option.”
Watch it:
Broden’s comments were chastised by local Republican officials, but they continue to endorse his run for office. Jonathan Neerman, head of the Dallas County Republican Party, said “it is a disappointing, isolated incident,” and that he planned to “discuss” it with the campaign. Ken Emanuelson, a leading tea party organizer in Dallas, said he did not disagree with the “philosophical point” that people had the right to resist a tyrannical government, but added, “do I see our government today anywhere close to that point? No, I don’t.”
Republicans and the national press already made a great deal of commotion over this race, when Broden’s opponent, Eddie Bernice Johnson, became involved in a scandal over the distribution of scholarship money. Broden’s stunning comments seem to deserve at least as much attention.
Running For Congress On Opposition To ‘Failed’ Stimulus, Tim Walberg Acknowledges His Son Got A Stimulus Job
Running For Congress On Opposition To ‘Failed’ Stimulus, Tim Walberg Acknowledges His Son Got A Stimulus Job
Former Rep. Tim Walberg (R-MI), who is running for Congress against incumbent Rep. Mark Schauer (D-MI), has campaigned by attacking the stimulus as a failure. Walberg has claimed the stimulus only killed jobs, and claimed that funds were spent on “socially conscious puppet shows” instead of infrastructure. As Political Correction noted, the puppet show claim is absolutely false. But Walberg has debunked his own claim that the stimulus failed to create jobs in a public forum he attended early in September. Speaking with community members, Walberg acknowledged that his son is employed by a contractor doing projects funded by the stimulus. Walberg’s son is among the 3 million people who gained jobs through the stimulus:
WALBERG: My son works for a cement-cutting contractor. They’re getting some overtime now. You know why? Because of the stimulus, doing government contracts. My son makes $10-an-hour, but when he works on a government contract, he makes $28-an-hour.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: It’s always been that way.
Watch it:
This week, the Center for Public Integrity released an explosive report detailing how dozens of lawmakers, including Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), privately requested hundreds of millions of dollars of stimulus money for their districts. The report added increased scrutiny to the stimulus hypocrisy first highlighted by ThinkProgress. While Walberg was not in Congress to request extra stimulus money, his family certainly benefited from a program his campaign pegs as a failure.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll