CBS News: ' John McCain Had Wicked Wit That He Often Aimed at Himself'

Source: CBS News- Senator Lindsay Graham and Senator John McCain on Capitol Hill. 

Source: The New Democrat

"Here's how John McCain made it clear he was happy to see you in the Senate hallways.

"Haven't seen you in a while. How was the Betty Ford clinic?"

Or he'd growl, "Whaddya want?"

From CBS News 

"See President Obama and  Sen. John McCain trade barbs at the Al Smith dinner, just before the 2008 election."

Source:CNN- Senator John McCain, at the 2008 Al Smith Dinner. 

From CNN

There are a lot of great things about Senator John McCain that we can respect and love about him, that I respect and love about him. His service in the Vietnam War where after he gets captured after his plane gets shot down he refuses to go home early, so his fellow Navy officers don't have to stay there as POW's and go through additional punishment and torture.

John McCain's straight forth honesty and candor, which for a politician especially a long time member of Congress where John McCain first gets elected to the House in 1982 and then the Senate in 1986 where he would remain a Senator until his death last Saturday: honest politicians especially honest members of Congress is about as common in Washington as blizzards and hurricanes in Arizona in August.

Members of Congress the most honest of them, tend to tell people and the media what they're thinking with spin. They won't tell you directly what they're about to do and thinking by just saying it, but instead will use spin to say exactly what they're thinking and about to do. Senator McCain, wasn't like that. 

If McCain didn't like you or respect you, he would just flat say that as Donald Trump has found out over and over. John McCain, had this ability and political skill to do what he wanted and take any position he wanted regardless of the political consequences and get away with it, because he had this AAA credit rating with his voters who told them that they might not agree with him on everything, but they respect him and the positions that he takes and why takes them, because he would make the case to them.

But the one thing that I'll remember most about John McCain, will always be his sense of humor, especially as someone who also writes political satire and humor on occasion. When you live the life of a John McCain and not only fight in the Vietnam War, but get shot down in it and if that's not bad enough you get captured by the other team and held in captivity and tortured for the next five years and manage to survive all of that and make a great life for yourself after that, you almost have to have a great sense of humor and be able to laugh about life especially yourself just to keep a positive face and perspective about yourself and life in general.

There are several lines about Senator McCain that I'll always remember and they're all about politics and his time in Congress and one of them having to do with the Congressional spending bills that the House and Senate have to deal with every year to fund the government. And if you're familiar with Senator McCain, you know he was a rock solid Conservative especially as it related to fiscal policy and wasn't just a fiscal Conservative, but somewhat maverick if not fanatic about it.

Congress is famous for a lot of bad things especially, but one of those things are known as porkbarrel projects. Money that a Representative or Senator manages to get attached to some spending bill that is directly related to their district or state that everyone else has to pay for that only benefits this district or a part of this state or that state. Senator McCain, would always say about these porkbarrel spending bills that Congress doesn't spend money like drunken sailors, but that Congress gives drunken sailors a bad name when it comes to spending. He was always making fun and attacking the waste in the Federal budget and all of the additional waste that Congress would try to attach.

Senator McCain, represents not the golden age of American politics or even Congress, but a time when Democrats were Democrats and Republicans were Republicans, but that they were competitors and not too countries looking to destroy each other. A time when Congress wasn't like the Vietnam War, but more like a playoff football game where both teams wanted to win, but also recognized the other team's right to exist and respected eacb other. A time when governing and campaigning weren't separate from each other because politics and government have and will always go together, but a time when politics didn't replace governing.

McCain represents an era where the two parties could work together to do the things that needed to be done and should've been done. The speech that he gave when he came back to Capitol Hill last summer right before the Senate was going to vote on an ObamaCare repeal bill and him talking about the need for Democrats and Republicans to work together, is a perfect example of that. 

John McCain is someone that won't just be missed, but someone who won't be replaced either. There is is no one else in Washington especially in Congress that is worth risking their political careers to do the right thing anymore, now that Senator John McCain has passed and is what will be missed about him the most in Washington.

Alabama Policy Institute: 60 Minutes Leslie Stahl- 'Tom Coburn’s Farewell-from-Congress Interview'

Source:Alabama Policy Institute- CBS News's Leslie Stahl, interviewing U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (Republican, Oklahoma)

"Tom Coburn, the former senator from Oklahoma and forthcoming keynote speaker at API’s 2016 Annual Mobile Dinner (for information, visit www.AnnualMobileDinner.com), discusses his life and career in his farewell interview, given shortly before he retired from Congress, on “60 Minutes.”

This is an abridged version of the television broadcast, which originally aired on CBS on Sunday, December 21, 2014, at 6:00 p.m. (CST)." 

From the Alabama Policy Institute 

I don't agree with Senator Tom Coburn on most if not all social issues. He's what's called a Christian-Conservative and I'm a Liberal across the board, but if there were 535 Tom Coburn's in Congress (House and Senate) Congress's approval rating would be in the 60s, 70s, maybe 80s. I'm not talking so much about policy, but as it relates to his personal character. 

The term American Patriot gets thrown out a lot (especially on the Right) but the term was invented for the Tom Coburn's of the world, because he's a man whose only in Washington and serving in Congress to represent his beloved State of Oklahoma and to serve his country. Not to get reelected or elected to higher office (which is what your average member of Congress does today) but to do what he believes is best for his state and country, regardless of what political price he may  have to pay. 

And again if there were more Tom Coburn's in Congress, Congress's approval rating would be a helluva higher than your average spam caller or accident attorney (which it currently trails) and Americans would respect their politicians. Perhaps not even look at them as politicians, but as public servants, which Senator Coburn always was. 

Keppler Speakers: 'Senator Bob Dole Shares Great Political Wit'

Source:Keppler Speakers- former U.S. Senate Republican Leader Robert J. Dole (Republican, Kansas)

Source:The Daily Review

“Since leaving public elective office, former Presidential candidate and Senator Bob Dole continues to take an active leadership role in a wide range of public policy and charitable causes. Recent projects include serving as Chairman of the National World War II Memorial, which was completed and dedicated in 2004; serving as Chairman of the International Commission on Missing Persons, and co-chairing, with Former President Bill Clinton, a foundation to assist the spouses and children of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attack; and serving as President of the Federal City Council. He also takes an active role in supporting the work of the Robert J. Dole Institute of Politics at his alma mater, Kansas University. As a renowned political commentator, a frequent guest on late night talk shows, star of two Super Bowl commercials and best selling author, Bob Dole is part of the American landscape. Senator Dole’s best-selling World War II memoir, One Soldier’s Story, chronicles his harrowing experience on and off the battlefield and the lessons learned through his struggle to survive. One Soldier’s Story is a tribute to those who defended liberty in its darkest hour and his gift to future generations, a destined-to-be classic about overcoming adversity and making the most out of life. Book Bob Dole at Speakers.com.” 

From Speakers 

Bob Dole, follows the oldest rule in the book, that he perhaps wrote himself, or had his good friend Strom Thurmond right for him: “Never take yourself too seriously.” The best rule for a politician, or any special interest servant, I mean public servant.

There’s so much nonsense (to be charitable) that goes on in Washington. Most people judge their finances in the thousands. Companies, in the thousands and millions, state and local government’s in the millions and to a certain extent hundreds of millions.

The U.S. Government in Washington millions of dollars to someone in Congress, is like a slam dunk to Lebron James: no big deal, something that he does several times in each game.

The U.S. Government, deal in billions, hundreds of billions and even trillions everyday. There’s so much money for them to manage and the fact that Congress, anyway represents the people who send them there and are only as good as them, there’s no way they can manage all of it themselves.

I think politicians have to laugh at themselves, otherwise they would go crazy and end up back at the nut house they escaped from to run for Congress and get reelected in the first place.

You’re always in the public eye even when you’re making your back room deals and voting on things you don’t want anyone especially your constituents to know about, because leaks get out. And people who work for you no longer feel they can hide what their boss is doing.

A public servant, is truly that at least in the sense that they work in the public, even if they work for their lobbyists. And in today’s internet age there’s only so much that they can hide from the public. So when they do crooked and stupid things, it gets out and they get reelected anyway, because their constituents are blind and didn’t bother to pay attention to what their senator, or representative was doing, or perhaps were drunk when they went into the voting booth. And voted for the wrong person by accident.

I believe what Bob Dole is talking about here is not only all the politicians in America that have had a great wit, but also making fun of a lot of things that he saw while he was in Congress. All the late night sessions because senators didn’t want to vote on things that their constituents would find out about. So they would vote when they thought the whole country was asleep. And even if Alaska and Hawaii found out about it, the thinking there was that they were too far away to do anything about it.

There’s so much nonsense (to be charitable) that goes on in Washington, Congress and the U.S. Government as a whole. You almost have to laugh at it, or deal with a horrible case of depression. And perhaps take up alcoholism to get through it. 

Senator Rand Paul: Senator Paul Speaks Out Against Budget Agreement: 10/29/15

Source:U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky)

Source:The New Democrat

I actually agree with a lot of what Senator Paul said here. But he gets a couple of things wrong here. The new spending in the Bipartisan Budget Act that is for defense and domestic programs is paid for by adjusting payments in Disability Insurance. As far as the Guns and Butter, that is what happens when you have a divided government where you have one party that always wants to increase defense spending and cut domestic spending, even infrastructure, which is generally a good pathway to reelection and the other party always looking to cut defense and increase domestic spending. So maybe we should look at the voters who send these people to Congress instead of the Congresspeople who just represent the people who send them there.

We do have a national debt of around twenty-trillion-dollars and I would love to bring that down and you can only do that through stronger economic growth, higher employment, with raising wages and deficit reduction. As long as you have a deficit, the debt will always go up. Which is how you get a national debt through annual deficits that are always adding to the debt. And again, divided government with a military oriented national security party that believes the best interest of corporations are always the best interest of the country. And a party that is more interested in domestic and economic spending, that tends to believe that the best interest of labor unions is always the best interest of the country.

So unless you have people from both parties who say, “we need to cut the deficit and I’m willing to give some of my priorities in a smart intelligent way, but I’m not going to hurt them, if you do the same thing with your priorities”, we’re always going to have guns and butter. Republicans, will get more military spending. Democrats, get more domestic spending like in the areas of infrastructure, education, medical research. And at best you’ll get a bipartisan agreement to fund and not borrow the money to pay for each parties priorities, but you won’t have a real agreement to deal with the long-term debt and budget deficit. That is how Congress works especially when the margins are fairly close both in the House and Senate and the President is from the other party that is not leading Congress. And this is also how you avoid government shutdowns and defaulting on the national debt. Which would have been the worst possible outcome.

S.E. Cupp: 'Yes, The Benghazi Hearings Are Political. So What?'

Source:The New York Daily News. Also known as The New York Daily Garbage, for their quality  of reporting.

Source:The New Democrat

The great CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow on his newscast See it Now, one night devoted his whole show to the Joe McCarthy hearings in the Senate. And he said that and I'm paraphrasing here, "one of the purposes of Congressional hearings (referring to the Senate McCarthy hearings) is to find out the truth and how government operates and to get information and facts about proposed legislation." Would someone please tell me what we learned at the House Benghazi hearing yesterday about that Benghazi tragedy? Not all tragedies are criminal. There are times when mistakes are made and people are unprepared that result in a tragedy. And House Republicans can talk about coverup all they want, so we really don't know what happened at Benghazi. But if that is the case then they're horrible lawyers and investigators, because it would be almost impossible to cover up a tragedy like that today.

All we got from the Thursday House Benghazi hearing was House Republicans giving Hillary Clinton the Christmas gift of the year. Even though she really had to earn it by devoting ten hours of her life to those Republicans. Most of them not being in Congress when she left to become Secretary of State in 2009. The gift being 10 hours of free publicity on national TV. Where she looked like the responsible adult, explaining to little children what can happen when you forget to close the door at night, or leave the door open during a big rain or snowstorm. And in her case when you have a U.S. Embassy in Benghazi, Libya and you don't have enough security in an area where the host government can't protect their foreign visitors. The Benghazi tragedy happened, because our embassy over there was undermanned and unprepared, especially as it relates to the security. But we knew all of this two years ago.

C-SPAN: 'John Boehner Resigns as Speaker of the House'

Source:C-SPAN- U.S. Speaker of the House John Boehner (Republican, Cincinnati, Ohio) announcing his retirement.

Source:The New Democrat

"Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) announces his resignation as Speaker of the House.  Watch the complete press conference here:C-SPAN." 

From C-SPAN

I don’t buy the regular guy line bit at all. John Boehner started off coming from a working-class German-American family in Cincinnati, Ohio which is very common there. But went to college and worked his way through there and became a successful small businessman in Ohio before running and getting elected to the House of Representatives in 1990, which was a bad year for Republicans who lost seats in the House thanks to a recession and an unpopular President Bush, the country getting ready to go to war with Iraq. 

Go up to 1994, as House Republicans win the House for the first time in forty-two years, he becomes Chairman of the Republican Conference. The fourth ranking Republican in the House. Becomes Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee in 2001, House Majority Leader in 2006 replacing Tom Delay.

John Boehner has spent most of his time in Congress as a House Republican leader, or committee chairman and has been there since 1991. We’re not talking about Joe Jones construction worker from Cleveland (or Cincinnati) who works very hard everyday, so his kids can have a better life than their father and hopefully retire with a decent pension and Social Security. We’re talking about a man with a successful business career, who became Speaker of the House of Representatives in 2011 and has held that job ever since. 

So not only is Speaker Boehner not a regular guy, but I sure as hell don’t feel sorry for him. We’re talking about a man who was never popular in his own caucus. And forget about House Democrats who don’t have much of say in who leads the House, John Boehner who was always in danger of losing his speakership because of his Far-Right and yet he decided to stay on and work through it anyway.

Whatever you think of John Boehner and as a Liberal Democrat I have a laundry list of issues with him myself and not bothering to take up immigration reform in the last Congress even after the Senate passed their own bipartisan bill is just one example, he was really one of the last adults in the House Republican Conference. Someone who at least knew how to govern and do what was right at the end to prevent current House Republican man-made crisis’ from becoming even worst. 

I hope Mr. Boehner remains Speaker, at least until the government funding issues are resolved. Because if you look at his possible replacements when you get past House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, or a bunch of Tea Party radicals there that rather use the government funding debate to try to force their policies on everyone else than to govern. Which means in a divided government working with the other party.

Secular Talk: Senator Tom Cotton First U.S. Senate Floor Speech

Source:The New Democrat

I saw about twenty-minutes of Senator Tom Cotton’s first U.S. Senate floor speech. (Thank God for C-SPAN) And twenty-minutes was about all as I could take from the freshman Senator, who sounded like a freshman in his first ever Senate speech. You would think a military veteran who served in the Iraq War, would have a hell of a lot more intelligence and knowledge about American foreign policy and national security. But maybe that is a topic of a different debate. But his first speech was about American foreign policy and national security. Which is perfectly legitimate especially from a military veteran. But all he had I guess thanks to the Heritage Foundation, was neoconservative talking points. Which I’m about to get into.

I’ve argued before that the Neoconservative is not conservative. Conservatives move cautiously and shows a lot of restraint, especially fiscally. One of the big points about being conservative is that you move, you know conservatively. The Neoconservative is right-wing Utopian. With all sorts of grand utopian ideas about how how great the world would be if America just ran it. And tends to see money as no object that their grand world strategy is such a wonderful thing that you don’t even have to pay for it. Because if anything it will pay for itself. The Iraq War and the Afghanistan War are excellent examples of that. For the first time America decided not to pay for its war operations upfront. And we’ve paid for it ever since on our national debt card.

The Neoconservative judges military strength by the size of the military budget. Doesn’t sound very conservative does it. That the more you spend on your military the stronger your military is. That it is not about what you spend when it comes to your military budget and what you spend it on and what you get from that spending, but how much you spend. And the Neoconservative also judges military strength by the size of the military budget in relation of gross national product. So the Neoconservative would say, “ten years ago we spend six-percent of our GDP on the military and now we spend 3.8%. So based on that our military is now weaker, because the budget is smaller.” Instead of judging the military by the capability of the military. What we are capable of doing now, as opposed to back when. Are we stronger and more capable in these areas, based on what we are actually able to do.

Senator John McCain, whose also a military veteran and a decorated one, is called and criticized by the Left, especially the Far-Left as a Neoconservative on foreign policy. And part of that is accurate as for as his belief in the use of force and military strength. But one of the reasons why he has so much bipartisan respect in Congress and on the outside is because he’s also one of the first members of Congress to point out military waste in the budget. Like when a senator or representative sticks in funding for a plane that can’t fly, that the military didn’t ask for, he’ll point that out and even name the member who put in that amendment on the Senate floor. That is why he can get away with a lot of his neo-con positions on the military, because he’s someone who knows what he’s talking about.

According to the Neoconservative, there’s no such thing as military waste. That every part of the military budget is sacrosanct. And even if there’s something not working properly with the military budget, it’s because its underfunded. I mean they almost sound like Social Democrats or Socialists even when it comes to how they prioritize the spending that they love. If a public school is not working well, or a social program is not performing well, the Socialist will automatically say, “it’s because its underfunded. That if we just spend more money on it and raise taxes that will fix the program.” The Neoconservative takes that same logic, but implies it to military spending instead of social welfare spending.

Just look at Senator Cotton’s speech and I suggest you watch the whole thing. That you could do either on C-SPAN’s website or go to the Senator’s website and you could watch it there. He goes through the military budget and how little we are spending here and there. And as a result we are now weaker when it comes to our national defense. Because back in the day we spent more money on this defense program or that one. According to Senator Cotton, instead of laying how capable we are here and there and what are military is physically capable of doing now. I’m sure a lot of Neoconservatives love him, Dick Cheney and others may encourage him to run for president in 2020. But that is not how you judge government budgets military or otherwise. You judge them based on capability and results. Not by how much you spend.

The Washington Post: Robert Costa- Presidential Run Not Off the Table For Paul Ryan

Source: The Washington Post- U.S. Representative Paul Ryan R, Wisconsin and Melanie Turner, in North Carolina.

Source: The New Democrat

I wouldn't bet anything that Representative Paul Ryan will run for president in 2016. I actually might be leaning in the other direction, because I don't believe he wants the job at least not now. And besides lets face it, he's never been elected statewide to anything or even run statewide for anything. He isn't even in his party's leadership with real power over what gets done and what is voted on the House floor. Yes he serves in Congress, but in the lower House, the House of Representatives where he serves in a very partisan Republican district.

The reason why the only presidential nominees that have come out of Congress have been Senators at least going back a hundred-sixty years, is because Senators represent the whole state. Senators tend to have at least some executive experience before arriving to the Senate. They also just don't represent their party in the Senate, but represent their state as a whole. And in a lot of cases they have to appeal to Independents and perhaps moderates in the other party to at least avoid a tough reelection. Representatives especially the stars, don't have those issues and just need to avoid primaries.

So Representative Ryan would have a major resume problem as a presidential candidate, even if he were to win the GOP nomination. I think Governor of Wisconsin would be very attractive for him, assuming he doesn't want to be a lifer in the House, as he put it and wants to make a real run for president. Especially if Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin loses tomorrow. And look to run for Governor in 2018 and perhaps the White House in 2020 or 2024, when he would only be in his fifties at that point.

When was the last time and sitting U.S. Representative even made a strong big for their party's presidential nomination, let alone won it? 1988 maybe with Representative Dick Gephardt, but his campaign because he wasn't able to appeal outside of the Midwest was fairly short. The same thing happen to him in 2004 and that is when he had just stepped down as House Minority Leader when Democrats failed to win back the House in 2002. There's a reason why our president's have tended to be executives for the most part with a few Senators as well. Because those people have to be able to appeal outside of their party's base to be successful. 
Source:The Huffington Post

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: 'Urges Obama Administration to Reject Anti First Amendment Rule'

Source:Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell- talking about the Internal Revenue Service in the Obama Administration.

"U.S. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell made the following remarks on the Senate floor calling on the Obama Administration to reject a proposed IRS rule that would suppress American free speech." 

From Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

National Review: Lou Dobbs Tonight- John Fund: GOP Realizes Opposing ObamaCare Not Enough

Source:The Huffington Post- Senate GOP Leadership.

Source:The New Democrat 

The whole problem with the Republican Party especially the Tea Party’s critique of the Affordable Care Act that they call ObamaCare is that they’ve never had a plan of their own at least as a party. One plan that brings the whole party together. They never tried to pass a broad health care reform plan when they controlled both the White House and Congress from 2003-07. They just passed a very expensive Medicare prescription drug plan in 2003. That they borrowed seven-hundred billion dollars to pay for.

House Republicans when they were still in the minority led by John Boehner, had a substitute to the House passed health care reform plan in late 2009. But you don’t see many Republicans or anyone else speaking very highly of it now. Senate Republicans didn’t offer anything in 2009-10 as an alternative to the ACA. Either thinking they could block the ACA with just forty-one votes or hoping it would pass so they would have a campaign issue.

Right now the only plan on the table is the Affordable Care Act, because no one else has a plan. At least something that could even pass the Republican House of Representatives. Which means the only alternative would be going back to pre-2010 and back to the old system. That most of the country didn’t like because so many Americans either couldn’t afford health insurance. Or would be denied it because of a pre-existing-condition, or would lose their health insurance because they would actually need it.

If you repeal without replacing the ACA, you go back to the old system. And right now Americans who still do not like the ACA are saying that ObamaCare is still better than the old system. Which is why the politics of trying to repeal ObamaCare just doesn’t work and won’t work at least until they come up with an alternative to ObamaCare. And say, “we know you don’t like the old system or the current system. And this is what we would do instead and why it would be better.
Source:National Review

You Hot News: Full Speech: Republican Address to The Nation 2014: U.S. House GOP Chairman Cathy McMorris Rodgers

Source:The New Democrat

This is what Cathy McMorris Rodgers should’ve of said tonight:

“Good evening, I’m Representative Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington State and I represent Eastern Washington. I’m Chairman of the House Republican Conference and tonight I have the high honor of giving the GOP response to what President Obama said tonight during his State of the Union speech.” And then get into what she disagreed with President Obama on in a respectful way and what she and House Republicans believe should be done instead. And where both sides agree on if anything and they want to work together.

What Cathy McMorris Rodgers said instead:

What we heard instead was a biographical address and I know she’s probably not very well-known outside of the House of Representatives and perhaps the national Republican Party. And felt the need to introduce herself with more of a biographical resume. But she’s not running for president or vice president or U.S. Senate or governor of Washington State. Her job was to layout the State of the Union from a Republican point of view and what House Republicans want to do in 2014.

And plus even when she talked about what President Obama and said and then finally got into what House Republicans want to do in 2014, nothing but Republican talking points. “We believe in free markets, apple pie, hard work and the American way to go along with low taxes. And we are working hard to do this.” And that without any details and specifics when it comes to policies. And what policies they are in favor of to accomplish, their goals.

NBC News In Plain Sight: Brian Williams Interviewing U.S. Representative Paul Ryan,

Source:The New Democrat

I rarely agree with Representative Paul Ryan on anything, but he actually makes some good points about poverty in America. And what I respect about is that he makes his points in an interesting way that leaves me to believe that and intelligent person can believe what he is saying. And say, “yeah I see how an intelligent person could agree with that. It might not be my approach. But it is a good alternative to what I’ve been talking about on these issues.”

Now here is where I agree with Representative Paul Ryan. Where he says that we all need to be in this together. Meaning the whole country when it comes to dealing with poverty in America. That the Federal Government can’t do all of it by themselves as much as they may want to. That the states and locals need to be involved here as well as the private sector. And for me that would be about empowering the non-profits in the private sector with the resources to train low-income workers. Give them health services, find and build them housing, give them childcare etc.

Representative Ryan was talking about the one size fits all solution to combating poverty in America. Meaning the Federal Government trying to manage everything themselves. That needs to stop and allow for the states and locals to have the resources to meet the needs of their own residents. With basic national standards in place, as well as empowering non-profits to deal with these issues. Empowering people in their own communities to take on poverty in their communities.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell: It's Time for Better Ideas

Source:The New Democrat

Minority Leader Mitch McConnell actually sounding constructive instead of obstructive here in talking about expanding educational and job training opportunities for unemployed workers as part of a deal that would extend Unemployment Insurance for these long-term workers. Who definitely need that income right now and is something that Senate Democrats should at least allow for a vote on. It is relevant to the legislation and would get these workers additional skills that would make to easier for them to find a good job and finally get off of Unemployment Insurance. If you’re unemployed right now, but already have a good education, but are having a hard time finding another job in your profession, the, the more you can improve your skills, the better your chances of finding a good full-time job.

GOP Weekly Address: Senator Thad Cochran With the GOP's Weekly ObamaCare Statement

Source:The New Democrat

The GOP’s one horse race is ObamaCare even though that is not the only issue Americans are interested in. And if you look at the weak December jobs report and millions of people losing their Unemployment Insurance without having any other way to pay their bills. But the GOP especially the Senate GOP believes their best and perhaps only shot at winning back the Senate in 2014 and giving Republicans a united Republican Congress is talk about what they do not like about the Affordable Care Act and we’ll see how it works for them. Because the Senate GOP at least has no agenda of their own. Nothing positive to run on tell Americans why Mitch McConnell should be Leader of the Senate in the next Congress.

Senator Mike Lee: 'Bring Them In'

Source:Heritage Foundation- U.S. Senator Mike Lee (Republican, Utah) in Washington.

Source:The New Democrat

"It’s always great to join with the Heritage Foundation in any context. But being a part of this Anti-Poverty Forum is a true privilege.  Members of my staff have been here all day, taking copious notes, and hopefully collecting all the business cards and white papers they can get their hands on.

It is of course a tragedy that we have to be here at all. Though the Bible says the poor will always be with us, it’s still hard to accept why, in a nation with a $15 trillion economy, the poor are still with us.

And yet, as we approach the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon Johnson’s famous “War on Poverty” speech, we all know the statistics. Despite trillions of taxpayer dollars spent to eradicate poverty since the late 1960s, the poverty rate has hardly budged. And just last week, the Census Bureau reported that today, more than 49 million Americans still live below the poverty line.

Today, a boy born in the bottom 20% of our income scale has a 42% chance of staying there as an adult. According to the O.E.C.D., the United States is third from the bottom of advanced countries in terms of upward economic mobility.

A recent study in Oregon found that the Medicaid program – which provides health insurance to the poor – produces basically no health improvements for its beneficiaries. A study last December on the Head Start program, issued by the Obama Administration itself, found that what few academic benefits three- and four-year olds do gain from the program all but disappear by end of the first grade.

We know that poor men and women are less likely to get married and stay married, that 30% of single mothers are living in poverty, and that their children are less likely to rise out of poverty themselves when they grow up.

We know that participation in civil society, volunteering, and religion are deteriorating in poor neighborhoods – compounding economic hardship with social isolation. And we know these trends cut across boundaries of race, ethnicity, and geography.

All of this might lead some to the depressing conclusion that – 50 years after Johnson’s speech - America’s war on poverty has failed. But the evidence proves nothing of the sort.  On the contrary, I believe the American people are poised to launch a new, bold, and heroic offensive in the war on poverty… if a renewed conservative movement has the courage to lead it... 

You can read the rest of Senator Mike Lee's statement. 

"In a speech at The Heritage Foundation, Senator Mike Lee identifies the next steps for Republicans to develop a conservative reform agenda. He also introduces four legislative proposals that are part of the conservative reform agenda that he identifies." 

Source:U.S. Senator Mike Lee- speaking to the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

From Senator Mike Lee 

If you look at President Lyndon Johnson's so-called War On Poverty, that his administration launched in 1965 and say that goal of President Johnson's antipoverty agenda was to wipe out poverty by the year, I don't know, 2013 (just to throw out a year) then of course I agree with Senator Lee here and say that the WOP has been mostly a failure. Poverty was roughly in America 20% in 1965, perhaps higher than that, 1/2 African-Americans in the 1960s, lived in poverty. 

But, if you look at the so-called War On Poverty and say that the goal of the WOP was to fight poverty and make it easier for people in poverty to survive, then there has been some successes: 

hunger is down 

more low-income Americans have access to health care 

affordable housing 

thanks to Welfare To Work from 1996, more low-skilled Americans are part of the American workforce 

and perhaps other examples as well. 

I think the real question here should be where do we go from here and how we move more Americans out of poverty. Not should we expand or eliminate the New Deal and Great Society, but instead how we move more Americans to get themselves out of poverty. And that gets to things like more education, more work, while allowing low-skilled Americans to keep their public assistance, while they're educating themselves and becoming part of the American workforce.

The American Conservative: Daniel McCarthy: 'Why The Shutdown is a Disaster For Small-Government Principles'

Source:U.S. Senator Ted Cruz (Republican, Texas)

Source:The FreeState

"The measure of a party’s commitment to limiting government is what it does in power. In opposition a party can do a few things, but obviously not as much as when it wields both executive and legislative authority.

By that criterion, what is one to make of the Republican Party?

With one house of one branch of government under its control, the GOP is fighting desperately to stop an expansion of social insurance—Obamacare—and might like to cut non-defense spending as well. Because holding the House of Representatives is not enough to repeal legislation, the GOP has to resort to more drastic steps—refusing to pass a continuing resolution to fund government if Obamacare is part of the CR. And now the party is signaling a refusal to raise the debt ceiling unless it gets something in return. Without a debt-ceiling hike, the federal government begins to default in about a week.

But no problem: shouldn’t a small-government party be happy to close the government for a while, showing everyone just which employees are “essential”? And isn’t the national debt something a small-government party wants to see capped and paid down, not constantly raised?

This would all make sense—Republicans are a small-government party, standing for principle—if not for what Republicans actually do when they are the party in power.

Obamacare is a bad law that addresses a real problem: everyone needs healthcare, insurance is a way of meeting unknown future needs, yet not everyone had insurance. By contrast, Medicare Part D, the prescription-drug add-on to Medicare passed by a Republican House and signed into law by a Republican president in 2003, was gratuitous: a new benefit for the wealthiest age cohort. But the small-government party supported it. And as is well known, Medicare Part D is but an outward and visible sign of the GOP’s overall spending tendencies the last time the party held power.

The story that voters are told today, both by Republicans themselves and by a mainstream media that views Republicans in general as extremely anti-government, is that the party has changed over the last five years. Whatever a Republican House may have done in 2003 just isn’t relevant to what a different Republican House wants in 2013.

There are two problems with that storyline. First, the 2003 Republican House was a continuation of the 1990s Republican House, which also shut down the government in a spending battle with a Democratic president. Something must have happened between 1995 and 2003 that led the Republican House to change its philosophy. In fact, several things happened, but the most important was the election of a Republican president in 2000. A Republican House would not have been eager to pass something like Medicare Part D under a Democratic president.

So if the small-government 1995 Republicans became the big-spending 2003 Republicans, what reason is there to believe that small-government 2013 Republicans won’t become big-spending 2017 or 2021 Republicans?

The second problem with the story that says Republicans have changed is that for all the new blood that has come into the congressional GOP, the party’s leaders—elected by its members, of course—are much the same people responsible for the 2003 Republican Party. John Boehner, Eric Cantor, Mitch McConnell, and Paul Ryan—the GOP’s present House and Senate leaders and its 2012 vice presidential nominee—all voted for Medicare Part D. The party’s 2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, instituted his own Obamacare-like system as governor of Massachusetts. This is a surprising leadership cadre for a party that’s supposed to be radically different in 2013 from what it was in 2003.

Instead of “Republicans have really changed,” a more plausible story is, “Republicans are pretty much the same,” both in key personnel and in principle. The principle the party has lived by in 1995, in 2003, and in 2013 is that Republican presidents and their policies are good, Democratic presidents and their policies are bad. The size of government or the national debt is a secondary concern, if that. The real test is what a party does when it holds power, not how desperately it struggles when the other party has power.

How does Ted Cruz fit into this? Although he worked for the George W. Bush Justice Department, he’s only been in the Senate while Obama has been in office, so whether his behavior would be the same under a Republican president is an open question. There were anti-spending Republicans who in 2003 voted against Bush’s entitlement expansion—Ron Paul and Jim DeMint among them—and there are others today, such as Justin Amash, who have shown an independent streak that suggests they would behave under a president from their own party as they do under one from the other party.

But the consistent faction in the 2003 GOP was not setting the party’s direction then, and today’s insurgents have yet to gain a foothold in leadership that suggests they will set the agenda in the future—however useful they may be to the party’s confrontational strategy whenever a Democrat is in office.

The GOP won’t be a serious small-government party until it attains power and has actually wielded that power to implement significant reforms and reductions. Everything that’s happening now is just theater—whatever the outcome of the present standoff, even if the House Republicans get everything they want, it could all be undone by another big-government Republican president and compliant Congress. The opposite is also true: if small-government Republicans get nothing out of this battle—if a clean CR and debt-ceiling hike pass—they would still have an opportunity to get what they want the next time they win national power, assuming they’re serious about what they want—more serious the GOP proved to be under Bush.

The question now becomes whether the shutdown and prospect of a default is increasing or decreasing the chances of Republicans gaining power nationally. About that, there’s not much doubt: these antics are hurting Republicans nationally more than Democrats. This doesn’t matter so much for retaining control of the House—Democrats won more votes for the House last year but Republicans maintained control because of the way districts are configured—but it does matter in terms of winning the White House. (What the shutdown and default mean for control of the Senate can be argued either way.)

If small-government Republicans, however many of them there are, are undercutting the chances of getting a president who could actually achieve their major goals by today fighting unpopular battles over continuing resolutions and the debt ceiling, are they really serious small-government politicians after all? At the very least, they would be short-sighted and ineffective small-government politicians; at worst, they would be mere actors, mouthing the lines and even performing small-government actions, but actions of no long-term substance.

Reducing and restructuring government is going to take time and careful planning, but what we see from the Republicans—abetted by certain activist groups and entertainers who feed off over-emotional listeners, viewers, and donors—is a party whose leadership and record in power is big government and whose committed small-government faction is crippling rather than augmenting its appeal to the country as a whole. This is a recipe for defeat of the small-government faction in future presidential nominating contests—where the Republican Party has shown a longstanding preference for candidates who seem like they can win over centrist voters—and that means even if a Republican can win the White House again in the near future, he’s more likely to be a Republican in the Bush mold.

The challenge for small-government Republicans today—the principled, consistent, and serious ones—is to win over the center of the country and a national electorate. Does the shutdown, let alone a threat of default, really help with that?" 

From The American Conservative

"Peter King Slams GOP 'Terror Politics' on Government Shutdown" 

Source:DNC Press- U.S. Representative Peter King (Republican, New York)

From DNC Press

I saw and interview on CNN’s The Situation Room today. And Wolf Blitzer who was interviewing Republican Representative Peter King, a Conservative Republican by any standard outside of the Tea Party wing of the Republican Party, who basically said this that he’s voted against the Affordable Care Act (what Republicans like to call ObamaCare) every chance he’s gotten. 

But for Republicans to get what they want, they need more power. That they do not have the power to get what they want, which is to eliminate the ACA and downsize the Federal Government to the vision that Barry Goldwater had for it when he wrote his famous book. And ran for President and when the modern conservative movement lets say was being built in the 1960s.

The American people, in poll after poll have spoken about ObamaCare and said they still do not like the law. But aren’t willing to shut the government down just to see if they can repeal, or defund it. Which is what House Republicans are trying to do right now which is to see how can they push the American economy to the cliff, before Democrats retreat. And give them exactly what they want for the good of the country. 

The country has spoken about ObamaCare and they didn’t like it when it was passed. So the threw out sixty-two House Democrats where most of them probably voted for the ACA. And gave House Republicans a sizable majority for 2011-12. But the U.S. Supreme Court has spoken about the ACA as well and ruled it constitutional.

We had a general election in 2012, both the president and Congress and the American people spoke again. And reelected President Obama overwhelmingly the man who signed the Affordable Care Act into law and campaigned on it. When he ran for president in 2007-08 and ran on it again when he ran for reelection in 2011-12. 

Then you look at the Congressional elections, Senate Democrats not only still control the Senate, but added two seats to their majority. Again they all voted for the ACA and the members who were elected in 2012 support the ACA as well. A bill that is still unpopular in most polls in the country but gaining support. Republicans still hold the House, but lost eight seats and now are in danger of losing their majority all together in 2012. Thanks to the government shutdown over ObamaCare.

House Republicans, especially the leadership say well they were reelected to. The problem with that argument is that they weren’t reelected to do everything that they want to do. Their voters in their little House districts may have reelected them to repeal, or defund ObamaCare. But the rest of the country didn’t give them the power to do that. 

So it is very simple for Republicans going forward. We have a divided government, but Republicans have the smaller share of this divide. Which means they simply do not have the power to get everything they want. And for them to repeal, or defund ObamaCare, they simply need to take back the Senate and White House while holding the House. And they won’t get that opportunity until the 2016 general elections. Short of that, they need to work with Democrats on things they can work on, or risk losing whatever power they still have.

House Republicans: Weekly Republican Address 8/17/13- U.S. Representative Shelley Moore Capito

Source:House GOP- U.S. Representative Shelly M, Capito: R, West Virginia.

Source:The FreeState

"In this week's address, Rep. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV) urges the President and Senate Democrats to support the bipartisan, House-passed delay of the individual mandate in the president's health care law. You and your family deserve the same relief the President recently gave to big businesses by delaying their employer mandate - it's only fair."

From House GOP

House Republicans, clearly know what they are against when it comes to healthcare reform. But haven’t figured out what they are for. Which will be a big problem for them as they consider shutting down government over defunding the Affordable Care Act. Or run against it next year when they are questioned about what they would do instead. Where’s the so-called party of ideas when it comes to health care reform?

Or maybe the House GOP loves the old health care system with how expensive it was more than the current system. And are just saying: “ObamaCare is bad and let's just go back to the old system. Where people can lose their health insurance simply because they need it.” But people don’t sign up for health insurance, simply in order to pay insurance companies. That they actually expected to be able to take out what they paid into once they actually needed it. Which is what insurance is about: putting money down, so you can have it and use it when you actually need it. Regardless for whatever it is that you are insuring.

CSPAN: Senator Rand Paul at Howard University

Source:CSPAN- U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) speaking at Howard University in Washington.

"Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) spoke to students at Howard University about the Republican Party's outreach efforts to young people and minorities." 

From Jay Argonaut

This is actually very smart politics by Senator Paul here and I'll explain why. African-Americans, including by left-wing African-Americans have been stereotyped, at least since the 1990s as a community of leftists that expect the Federal Government to do everything for them and want government to just give them things and take care of them, to make up for everything that the United Kingdom and the United States has done to them, since the 1st African was kidnapped and forced to live in North America as slaves, in the 1600s. 

The truth is, African-Americans voted Republican, perhaps not as a majority, but the Republican Party was very competitive, at least in that community, all the way through Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. It's really not until George H.W. Bush's presidential campaign of 1988 and his reelection campaign of 1992, where you started to see the African-American community as a large and reliable voting bloq of the Democratic Party, because of the Christian-Right and broader Far-Right influence in the Republican Party. 

You go back to the 1960s with Nation of Islam Minister Malcolm X, or go way before that with Frederick Douglas, Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell today, there's always been a conservative or classical liberal movement in the African-American community. 

Of course there are Socialists and Black Nationalists in the African-American community. But you can say that about every racial community in America. There's also a Christian-Right in the African-American community, like with European-Americans, especially Anglo-Saxons. 

But there's always been a core faction of African-Americans that believe in limited government, personal responsibility, fiscal responsibility, and property rights (economic and personal) and I believe those are the folks that Senator Paul was trying to reach at Howard University.

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Senator Rand Paul: 'Floor Speech in Defense of The Sixth Amendment'

Source:U.S. Senator Rand Paul (Republican, Kentucky) speaking in favor of the 6th Amendment.

"Sen. Rand Paul floor speech in defense of the Sixth Amendment" 

From Senator Rand Paul

This is what a real Conservative and someone whose really against Big Government sounds like. Speaking up in defense of the U.S. Constitution and speaking out against indefinite detention. And that government in the United States doesn't have the constitutional authority to hold people, especially Americans, without a hearing or trial or access to a lawyer. As well as that every American has a constitutional right to a trial by jury.

U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders: Social Security

Source:U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders- (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont)

"Ronald Reagan was Right"

Source:U.S. Bernie Sanders

Senator Sanders and President Reagan perhaps agreeing on something for the only time in their lives, that Social Security is not the cause of our debt and deficits. Well, not really, because within 20-25 years if nothing is done to reform the program we're going to see more people collecting from Social Security than collecting from it. 

Not sure what generation that Senator Sanders considers himself being a member of being born in late 1941, but having to deal with all of the cultural issues that every other Baby Boomer from the 1960s dealt with as young adults. But the Baby Boomers (and perhaps Bernie considers himself to be a member of) are going to eat away at the Social Security program. Even Senator Sanders has suggested reforms to it. Like lifting the cap on the amount of income that could be taxed to fund Social Security. 

It is not just fiscal Conservatives who see issues with Social Security that should be addressed. Center-Left Democrats and others who are in Congress, as well as even Democratic Socialists like Bernie Sanders, who believe changes to the program need to be made, to make the program as strong as it needs to be.