Yes, 90% of Americans wanted at least a background check done whenever someone buys a gun. No, Americans did not get what they wanted today, as Republicans joined hand in hand and voted against that most basic idea.
And, these so-called Democrats joined the Republicans in defeating background checks.
It’s mind-boggling that some Congressional Republicans would beg and plead with the Obama administration for emergency relief for their districts when those districts were hit with a natural disaster like a hurricane or flooding. But when they had an opportunity to help Americans in other parts of the country, like those affected by Hurricane Sandy, these same Republicans voted ‘no’ to providing this help.
In a recent vote held in the United States House of Representatives, 67 Republicans voted against helping the victims of Hurricane Sandy. But some of these same members requested funds from the government when the people they represent needed help.
Members like Missouri Republican Sam Graves who—just two years ago—begged President Obama for an emergency declaration freeing up big time federal bucks to aid the people in his home district in their hour of need following a severe natural disaster.
And what do you imagine the money was for?
Would you believe it was for damages Graves’ constituents suffered from flooding-the very same problem in New York and New Jersey that today’s House vote was addressing?
Here is what Congressman Graves had to say when it was his neighbors who were under water:
“I urge the President to approve this assistance without delay. Many communities along the river have been stretched to the limit preparing for and fighting this unprecedented flood.”
Yes…he really said that.
And yet, today, the Congressman voted to deny similar aid to the victims of Sandy.
In 2009, Georgia Republican Paul Broun applauded the larges sums of FEMA money being spent in his Congressional district when parts of Stephens County suffered serious damage as a result of…wait for it…flooding.
Today, Congressman Broun cast a no vote on a bill created to help out those suffering from flooding in New York and New Jersey.
And then there is Republican Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama who, in 2011, held town meetings back home to help educate constituents victimized by a devastating tornado as to how to go about getting federal assistance money that his constituents would not have to pay back.
Here is the statement the distinguished gentleman from Alabama issued at that time as a part of his effort to bring people into his town meetings:
“I urge tornado victims to attend these meetings to better understand their federal assistance rights. Some of it is in the form of loans, SBA long term low interest loans but there are also direct grants that you do not have to repay if you qualify, unemployment compensation, rents as you try to find a new place to live.“
Today, Congressman Brooks voted against providing the funding to pay the rightful claims to those who suffered in Sandy.
The Republican nominating process this election cycle has been a godsend for the Democratic Party and the Obama re-election campaign is taking full advantage of that process.
With the recent withdrawal of Newt Gingrich’s presidential aspirations, the President’s campaign has put together this nifty little ad, using some of Newt’s own words to describe Mitt Romney.
Let’s go to the video-tape.
Americans are paying attention. In a new poll conducted by CBS, 71% of Americans are against the way the Republicans are handling the debt ceiling issue, with only 21% giving the Republicans their approval.
President Obama and the Democrats received a little better rating, with 43% approving and 48% disapproving of the way they’re handling the crisis. But what’s troublesome for Republicans is the polling of their own supporters, where voters identifying themselves as Republicans are turning against their leaders. The report claims;
Even half of the Republican respondents (51 percent) voiced disapproval of how members of their own party in Congress are handling the talks. Far fewer Democrats expressed disapproval of their own party’s handling (32 percent) or President Obama’s (22 percent) of the urgent quest to raise the nation’s debt limit ahead of a looming default on Aug. 2 if action isn’t taken.
See more of the Poll here.
After President Obama presented his speech on reducing the federal debt, Republicans went on a crying spree, accusing the President of not playing fair, and “making a partisan speech.” All of a sudden, the very same Republicans who have stood in the way of every single piece of legislation the Obama administration has put forth, are now questioning why, as they see it, President Obama is not working with them and agreeing on the Paul Ryan budget.
So to make sure Republicans heard him the first time around, President Obama used his weekly address to put emphasis on his original points – that all, including the rich, must contribute their share to America’s future, and that Paul Ryan’s plan is not worth the paper it is written on.
The President:
Now, one plan put forward by some Republicans in the House of Representatives aims to reduce our deficit by $4 trillion over the next ten years. But while I think their goal is worthy, I believe their vision is wrong for America. It’s a vision that says, at a time when other nations are hustling to out-compete us for the jobs and businesses of tomorrow, we have to make drastic cuts in education, infrastructure, and clean energy – the very investments we need to win that competition and get those jobs.
It’s a vision that says that in order to reduce the deficit, we have to end Medicare as we know it, and make cuts to Medicaid that would leave millions of seniors, poor children, and Americans with disabilities without the care they need.
But even as this plan proposes these drastic cuts, it would also give $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest 2% of Americans–an extra $200,000 for every millionaire and billionaire in the country.
I don’t think that’s right. I don’t think it’s right to ask seniors to pay thousands more for health care, or ask students to postpone college, just so we don’t have to ask those who have prospered so much in this land of opportunity to give back a little more.
Since gaining power in the House of Representatives, Republicans have attacked just about every major group of middle class Americans it could classify. So there should be no surprise that the American Association of Retired Persons also known as the AARP is next in line for the GOP’s crosshairs.
Republicans are now asking the IRS to investigate the AARP, in an effort to cut off funding to the organization. Their reasoning is that because of AARP’s support for President Obama’s Health Care reform, the group is than bound to profit from the reform and thus, should be stripped of its federal funding. The Boston Globe reports;
Three veteran GOP representatives released a report that estimates the seniors lobby could make an additional $1 billion over 10 years on health insurance plans whose sales are expected to pick up under the new law. They also questioned seven-figure compensation for some AARP executives.
“Based on the available evidence, substantial questions remain about whether AARP should maintain its tax-exempt status,” said the report, released by Reps. Wally Herger of California, Charles Boustany of Louisiana and Dave Reichert of Washington.
AARP said profit had nothing to do with its support for President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, which expands coverage to nearly all Americans, a longstanding goal of the organization.
“We are very disappointed in the report and reject its conclusions,” said AARP President Lee Hammond. “AARP is no more an insurance company than we are an online travel company … the royalties we receive allow us to keep member dues low.”
Can we expect to see massive protests from the seniors in the Teaparty? After all, this organization represents them and provides benefits for their well-being in their golden years. When will the first march on Washington take place?
Don’t hold your breath. Defunding AARP, although it will eventually hurt TP seniors currently under the program, has absolutely no effect on the millionaires and billionaires who fund the Teaparty. In fact, taking away from AARP works in favor of the wealthy. Republicans lackeys will make certain that this money get’s to them in the form of another well deserved tax-cut.
You have to hand it to Anthony Weiner, Democratic Representative from New York. He appeared on a FOX show hosted by Sean Hannity and got double teamed by the host and his other guest, Michele Bachmann.
What made this video most enjoyable was seeing the obviously transparent ways the right winged host, who is supposed to practice “Fair and Balanced” journalism, attacks Mr. Weiner. Needless to say, Weiner didn’t get to say much, but he eventually realized what was happening and advised the host;
Sean, make it three on one next time. Make it three on one or four on one next time. I’m ready for you.
The “Fair and Balanced” host shot back with a personal attack on his guest, telling Mr. Weiner, “You’re a star, just don’t look in the mirror.” Mr. Weiner replied with a laugh, saying “I love these balanced debates.”
How this ‘organization’ is allowed to bear the name “news” in its title is still beyond my understanding.
He seemed to be just another ordinary man, driving a pick-up truck, cruising around Massachusetts shaking hands and kissing babies. He was endorsed by the Teaparty and was poised to go down in defeat in a state that was often referred to as a liberal county – and after all, he was running a campaign to replace one of the most liberal members of Congress, the late Ted Kennedy. At a time when Republicans only controlled 40 seats in the Senate and embraced the label “the party of NO,” Brown was seen as the automatic 41st vote against a Democratic controlled majority. The Teaparty powered his campaign with what seemed to be an unlimited amount of cash, and with the lack-luster effort of his Democratic rival Martha Coakley, Scott Brown won the Senate seat controlled by Democrats for almost 50 years.
The Teaparty rejoiced. Their 41st “NO” vote was in place and this was supposed to be the beginning of the revolution to “take their country back!” But something was different about Brown. He seemed to be putting the people of his state before the wishes of his party. He was not the rubber-stamp they expected and he even sided with Democrats on some very important pieces of legislations, like the New START Treaty, repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, Financial Reform and the Jobs bill in 2010 – bills geared to increase America’s security and economic standing, but vastly different from the Teaparty’s ideas on where they wanted America to be.
Now, because of his stance on these and other issues, the Teaparty is trying to unseat Brown.
Scott Wheeler, a Republican activist whose Political Action Committee invested “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in Brown’s election campaign is livid! In a recent article Wheeler wrote called, “Why Scott Brown Must Be Defeated,” Mr. Wheeler said;
An organization I run, The National Republican Trust PAC, raised and spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to help Scott Brown win the Massachusetts special election to fill the seat vacated upon the death of Ted Kennedy. That organization will now do everything possible to see that Brown is defeated by a primary opponent when he faces reelection in 2012. Why? Because there is no difference between him and a Democrat.
Brown is caught between a rock and a hard place. His party is turning against him, his Teaparty supporters are turning against him, and with his re-election coming up in 2012, Democrats will prefer seeing one of their own reclaim the seat once held by Ted Kennedy. Mr. Brown is feeling the uprising from all sides.
In a meeting with his constituents, Newsweek describes Brown’s opening statement to the audience as he explains the dilemma he faces;
The strain of walking such a fine line must be getting to Brown, because as soon as he finishes his initial round of pleasantries, he launches into a peevish rant about how unfair conservatives are being when they criticize him. “The Democrats are in charge!” he shouts, his voice reaching the high, strained register that teenagers typically use when they don’t want to take out the trash. “Does that mean I’m supposed to do nothing? That I’m supposed to vote with my party every single second of every single day? Why? I haven’t done it for 15 years in the state legislature. All of a sudden I’m supposed to be an ideologue? I’m not quite sure what the mystery is, folks. When I hear some of the comments…I don’t know what the mystery is. I said I was going down there to be a Scott Brown Republican, not someone who works for Harry Reid—or Mitch McConnell!” It’s as if Brown is no longer addressing the people in the room—again, they’re mostly Democrats. Instead, he seems to be fending off foes in Washington, real or otherwise. Unsure of how to react, the crowd quietly pokes at its meatloaf.
This dilemma is real, and Scott Brown knows it. If he fights for the people and does what he believe is right, then the Teaparty and the Republicans in Congress will continue to do all they can to take away his GOP membership card. If he becomes a Republican rubber-stamp, then it is very likely the citizens of Massachusetts will make their voices heard in 2012 and reward the seat to someone who puts them first. And if he aligns himself more with the Democrats, then Democrats accuse him of playing politics, just to get re-elected.
Scott Brown doesn’t need any advise from me, a simple blogger, but if I were to advise him, I would tell him to continue doing what is right for his constituents. Let the Teaparty, Republicans and Democrats fight among themselves. But knowing how the Republicans demand their caucus stick together in opposition to President Obama’s initiatives, its only a matter of time before they make Brown fall into line.
