Tag Archives: Ted Kennedy

Gingrich: Republicans Will Oppose Any Immigration Plan Backed By Obama Because They Hate Obama

Someone dragged Newt Gingrich from behind the woodwork to give his opinion on immigration issues.  This time, there might even be a modicum of truth to what he’s saying…

Think Progress

During an appearance on ABC’s This Week on Sunday, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-GA) admitted that Republicans are likely to oppose any immigration reform proposal introduced by President Obama because they personally dislike the Commander-in-Chief.

“An Obama plan led and driven by Obama in this atmosphere with the level of hostility towards the president and the way he goads the hostility I think is very hard to imagine that bill, that his bill is going to pass the House,” Gingrich said. “I think that negotiated with a Senate immigration bill that has to have bipartisan support could actually get to the president’s desk.”

The Senate-backed framework for immigration reform, which enhances security on the border and includes a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, shares many similarities with Obama’s own proposal, though the president has repeatedly said that if Congress fails to make progress, he will introduce his own reform legislation.

That plan, obtained by USA Today, “mirrors many provisions of the bipartisan 2007 bill” spearheaded by Ted Kennedy and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and would allow unauthorized immigrants “to become legal permanent residents within eight years.” “The plan also would provide for more security funding and require business owners to check the immigration status of new hires within four years,” the paper reports.

Despite its bipartisan nature, the draft proposal was immediately panned by Republicans. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) — a member of the Senate group working towards producing comprehensive legislation — called it “dead on arrival,” while Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) said it demonstrated that Obama is “looking for a partisan advantage and not a bipartisan solution.”

4 Comments

Filed under Immigration, Newt Gingrich

Scott Brown Touts Praise For Ad From Conservative Blog That Claims Obama Is Muslim

Scott Brown: What About All The Rich Schoolteachers?

This really dumb Senator who won Senator Ted Kennedy’s seat  needs to stop pandering to right wing radicals…unless of course he  is a right-wing radical.

The Huffington Post

Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) is raising money off praise from a conservative blogger who believes that President Barack Obama is Muslim.

In an emailed pitch last week, the Massachusetts Republican boasted that his latest ad — which seeks to tie Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren to Obama’s “you didn’t build that” comments — has been “cheered across the nation by patriots.” He then lists several positive reviews, including one from the conservative blog Libertarian Republican that claimed Obama is a Muslim as recently as last week.

“It has been called ‘powerful,’ ‘devastating,’ and ‘quite possibly the greatest ad for 2012 by any candidate in either party,’ ” Brown wrote in the fundraising appeal, which ends with a request for $100, $50, or $25 donations.

The third accolade comes from Libertarian Republican, which has suggested or stated that Obama is a Muslim on several occasions, although the president has repeatedly described himself as a Christian. As recently as Saturday, Libertarian Republican editor Eric Dondero wrote a blog post about the start of Ramadan under the headline “America’s Muslim President celebrates Islamic holiday.”

Dondero told The Huffington Post on Friday that he was pleased to hear the Brown campaign was promoting his endorsement of the blockbuster ad.

“I think Sen. Brown has always had an appeal to the libertarian wing of the GOP,” Dondero said. “He’s a fiscally conservative, socially tolerant Republican, kind of like a William Weld-type from the 1990s, and we love him.”

Dondero added that it is a “fact” that Obama is Muslim, pointing to a 2008 interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos in which the president references “my Muslim faith” while acknowledging that his opponent then-Republican presidential candidate John McCain had denied such rumors.

The implication that Obama was proclaiming his own Muslim alliance was rated“false” by the urban legend-vetting website Snopes.

A Brown spokeswoman declined to comment Friday.

A Pew Research Center survey released Thursday shows that some Republicans continue to wrongly name Obama’s religion. Among the most conservative respondents, 34 percent said Obama is Muslim, a 14-point increase since Pew asked the same question in October 2008.

Warren’s campaign deferred to the Massachusetts Democratic Party when asked for comment.

“Scott Brown’s decision to cite praise from an extreme, far-right-wing website like this in a personal fundraising appeal speaks for itself,” spokesman Matt House said in a statement.

Dondero’s views on religious affiliation are not limited to Obama. Earlier this month, Dondero called Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) a member of “America’s Muslim Brotherhood,” echoing a controversial claim by some Tea Party lawmakers that the Islamic terrorist organization is trying to infiltrate the federal government.

In a live chat with Boston.com readers Friday, Brown kept the spotlight on the Dondero-backed ad. “The people of MA will have a very real choice this November,” Brown wrote in response to a submitted question about his major differences with Warren. “I would refer people to my ad ‘Let America Be America Again.’”

Comments Off

Filed under Scott Brown

Romney In 1994 Said Bain Created 10,000 Jobs; Romney In 2012: 100,000

Can we believe anything that “Mittens” says?

Alan Colmes

The number of jobs Romney claimed he created at Bain has changed between 1994 and now.

In 1994 Romney countered similar attacks from Ted Kennedy in his ill-fated Senate race with this ad claiming he created 10,000 jobs. Romney now claims his time at Bain created 100,000 jobs, a number that has been attacked by Democrats.

Democrats point out how Romney is playing fast and loose with the facts.

2 Comments

Filed under Mitt Romney, Mitt Romney Campaign

It’s The Politics, Stupid

Presidential candidate Mitt Romney doesn’t want to give details on his budget plan in terms of what he will cut because it wouldn’t be politically expedient… OK!

TPM2012

Romney won’t get specific for fear of criticism

Mitt Romney has made big promises to reform Washington, but his proposals have mostly lacked specifics. In a recently published interview with the conservative Weekly Standard, Romney explained why his promises to cut federal spending by slashing government programs and even whole agencies lack detail: it’s too politically risky.

“One of the things I found in a short campaign against Ted Kennedy was that when I said, for instance, that I wanted to eliminate the Department of Education, that was used to suggest I don’t care about education,” Romney told the magazine, recalling his 1994 run for Kennedy’s Senate seat.

It appears Romney doesn’t want to make the same mistake twice.

“So I think it’s important for me to point out that I anticipate that there will be departments and agencies that will either be eliminated or combined with other agencies. So for instance, I anticipate that housing vouchers will be turned over to the states rather than be administered at the federal level, and so at this point I think of the programs to be eliminated or to be returned to the states, and we’ll see what consolidation opportunities exist as a result of those program eliminations. So will there be some that get eliminated or combined? The answer is yes, but I’m not going to give you a list right now.”

As the Weekly Standard’s Stephen F. Hayes points out in his piece, this isn’t what conservatives are looking for in a candidate. “Romney’s answer goes a long way to explain why some conservatives have been reluctant to embrace his candidacy,” writes Hayes. “They want a list. They want it to be long, they want it to be detailed, and they want a candidate who is not only willing to provide one but eager to campaign on it.”

As Romney’s answer does make clear, though, he will look for ways to turn government-run programs — like Medicaid — into block-grants for states so that they can run the programs themselves. His Medicaid plan, which he has repeated on the trail for months, is a good example of one detail he does divulge. And if Romney is looking to appeal to both conservatives and independents, block-granting programs is a good way to appeal to conservatives by taking them out of federal hands. In this case, it’ll shrink and transform Medicaid without offering Democrats the political shock-value of eliminating the program outright.

Romney’s hesitance to get specific isn’t uncharacteristic. The former Massachusetts governor has a tax plan that, in his own words, “can’t be scored” because it lacks the details that would allow the plan to be critically evaluated. He was happy to divulge that he would lower taxes for most Americans, but opted not to explain how he would make up for the lost revenue. Those details, he said earlier this month, should be worked out with Congress.

On the foreign policy front, Romney has criticized President Obama’s Afghanistan strategy but said he won’t put forward a plan until he hears from generals on the ground. As he said last week, “before I take a stand at a particular course of action, I want to get the input from the people who are there.”

For conservative voters wary of nominating an Etch-A-Sketch candidate, the GOP frontrunner has broadly wedded himself to the Republican agenda of gutting federal spending on domestic programs, telling Hayes, “Actually eliminating programs is the most important way to keep Congress from stuffing the money back into them.” But, as with his other big plans, voters may have to wait until he gets into office to find out which ones. The difference is that this time, Romney has openly chalked up the lack of details to political considerations.

Comments Off

Filed under Mitt Romney

Romney’s Inexplicable Debate Fibs

This is typical of Mitt Romney.  It’s just that this time more folks paid attention to his lies.

BuzzFeed

Why not just tell the truth? The odd, small shadings of truth were the talk of the spin room in Concord after Sunday’s debate.

Mitt Romney’s generally strong debate performance was marred by two small and inexplicable shadings of fact — moments that left reporters, rivals, and allies shaking their heads and wondering why he he couldn’t just give a straight and obvious answer to relatively trivial questions.

Early in the debate, Rick Santorum pressed Romney on why he hadn’t run for re-election in 2006, when his first term as Governor expired. Romney suggested it was because politics isn’t his calling:

I think it’s unusual, and– and perhaps– understandable, that people who spend their life in politics imagine that if you get in politics that that’s all you wanna do. That if you’ve been elected to something, well, you get– wanna get reelected and reelected.

I went to Massachusetts to make it different. I didn’t go there to begin a political career, running time and time again. made a difference. I put in place the things I wanted to do. I listed out the accomplishments we wanted to pursue in our administration. There were 100 things we wanted to do. Those things I pursued aggressively. Some we won. Some we didn’t.

Run again? That would be about me. I was trying to help get the state in best shape as I possibly could. Left the– the world of politics, went back into business.

This is, as Newt Gingrich pointed out, ridiculous. Romney left the governor’s office for a presidential campaign that hasn’t stopped since.

You had been out of state for something like 200 days preparing to run for president. You didn’t have this interlude of … citizenship while you thought about what to do. You were running for president while you were governor. You were gone all over the country. You were– you were out of state consistently.

You then promptly reentered politics. You happened to lose to McCain as you had lost to Kennedy.

The second apparent fib came when Romney was asked about the ads attacking Newt Gingrich aired by Restore our Future, the Super PAC that supports Romney.

“I haven’t seen the ads,” he said.

Seconds later: “The ad I saw said you were forced out of the speakership.”

Romney went down to list attacks from the ad in question, which could be any of (or some combination of) the Restore Our Future spots.

Romney spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom said after the debate Romney meant to say he hadn’t seen all the ads. “He described the one ad he did see,” he said.

Comments Off

Filed under Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney Explains His Inconsistency as Being ‘Human’

Addicting Info

Macy’s store mannequin and Republican frontrunner (just don’t tell Republicans that), Mitt Romney,  is notorious for taking a position, tergiversating on that position, and then choosing a new position on which to tergiversate to reflect the latest poll or Republican talking point de jour.

As Governor of a liberal blue-state, Mitt Romney was pro-choice (or multiple choice as Ted Kennedy once derided during a debate). He was also one of the lone moderate Republicans to actually heed the advice of celebrated climatologists (instead of the janitor at Exxon) regarding climate change, only to repudiate his belief in man-made activities contributing to climate change. And, most notorious, Romney has devoted most of his time on the stump –and debates– meticulously renouncing his mandate health plan he created in Massachusetts, which served as a template for Obama’sAffordable Care Act.

Regarding his abrupt change in philosophy, Romney said “‘What works in one state may not be the answer for another.”  It looks like the Gordon Gekko candidate is more like Gordon Chameleon, carefully changing and saying anything and everything that teabagger republicans want to hear in order to get elected. The Obama relection campaign has publicly cited plans to devote a portion of its campaign strategy on this very phenomenon.

Realizing his flip-flopping is an Achilles heel, Romney finally addressed this problem earlier today.

When pressed by a New Hampshire editorial board about his  famous vacillations on kep political issues over the last decade, Romney  this to say:

 ”I’ve been as consistent as human beings can be.”

Are you serious, Mittens? That’s the type of verbal gymnastics and philosophical expostulating one would expect from former president Bill Clinton when confronted with the meaning of blow jobs.

Romney has formally said that “corporations are people,” and since humans are prone to err, is he saying that he is about as consistent as a corporation. Or, is he making a commentary on human beings’ inability to be consistent.

I don’t think Lao Zsu himself could wax philosophical on the intrinsic meaning behind Romney’s justification for lying and changing his position on everything under the sun, including the sun. Then again, Romney can pretty  much say anything with the pizza perv receiving so much media scrutiny over his past sexual shenanigans.

Related articles

Comments Off

Filed under Mitt Romney

Better Angels and Killer Angels – (Re- Post)

A century and a half after Abraham Lincoln was elected, some truths go marching on. Take heed, Obama.

11-27-2010 As we approach the last two full weeks of 111th Congress, I felt this article should be re-posted.

Newsweek’s article on President Obama’s recognition and frequent use of Abe Lincoln’s term “better angels” brings to light, the unnerving fact that Obama also needs to realize what Lincoln understood: that there may be better angels in the nature of some people, but there are others who are willing to weaken, even destroy a nation to serve their own self-righteous self-interest, and they will do it in the name of the Constitution…

Newsweek

President Barack Obama loves to quote the lyrical closing lines of Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, calling on “the better angels of our nature” to overcome partisan hatreds and political divisions. Obama cited those words in his own inaugural proclamation and rested his hand on Lincoln’s Bible when he took the oath of office. He has come back to those angels again and again ever since. A search of Google and the White House Web site turns up half a dozen examples. He used the phrase to eulogize Ted Kennedy, to chide a would-be Quran burner in Florida, and to say goodbye to chief of staff Rahm Emanuel. Obama, it seems, sees better angels just about everywhere. Even as he traveled in India this week he talked about his efforts to live up to the example of Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and, yes, Abraham Lincoln.

But in light of today’s real-world politics, Obama should think a little harder about the context in which Lincoln summoned those better angels on March 4, 1861. Led by South Carolina (now home to Sen. Jim DeMint), seven of 33 states had already seceded from the Union to form the Confederacy at that point. Only days before Lincoln took office, he had to sneak into Washington in the lonely hours before dawn because of an assassination plot. The month after his inauguration, the South fired on the federal garrison at Fort Sumter to begin the Civil War in earnest.

If, in the end, Lincoln did manage to hold the Union together, it was not because of the better angels of human nature, but because he finally found the killer angels among his generals who could, and did, and at enormous cost, crush the secessionists.

These basic facts about a moment of history that Obama obviously holds dear are worth going over again right now because, in fact, the secessionists of 1860 are the ideological forebears of the Tea Party movement today. No, the United States is not on the verge of another violent breakup, not close at all, even if Tea Party icons like Gov. Rick Perry in Texas or some of Sarah Palin’s friends and relatives in Alaska may toy with the notion of secession. But there is in American politics today a discourse of such cupidity, bigotry, and self-delusion about the role of government that it would have been familiar to anyone following the rhetoric of the Southern “fire-eaters” pushing the country toward a conflagration 150 years ago.     Continue reading…

Comments Off

Filed under GOP, GOP Agenda, GOP Leadership Quagmire, GOP Obstructionism, GOP Political Attacks, President Barack Obama

Oprah Fails to Question Bush on Important Aspects of His Legacy

Newsweek

If someone were to ask you what the dominant political issue is at the moment, you’d probably say the national debt or extension of the Bush tax cuts. The most controversial political fight of the last two years? Surely health care reform. So, when former President George W. Bush granted a long televised interview to promote his new memoir — which is to say, as Bush attempts to polish his tarnished reputation, you’d think he would be asked about his budget-busting tax cuts and the creation of a Medicare prescription drug benefit.

You would be wrong. Like Matt Lauer Monday night, Oprah Winfrey, in her gauzy interview with Bush on Tuesday afternoon, did not ask a single question about those policies. Today conservatives argue that the budget reconciliation process is being exploited when it is used to pass the sidecar of amendments to health care reform that could have fallen prey to a filibuster after Ted Kennedy’s death. In 2001 Republicans used reconciliation to pass Bush’s tax cuts. What does Bush make of the precedent he set? We don’t know, because Winfrey, like Lauer, did not ask him. Today conservatives complain about deficit-spending, and that health care reform was passed by bribing and bullying fence-sitters, but we have no idea what Bush makes of the infamous arm-twisting by his allies in the GOP House leadership to whip the votes for Medicare Part D, an unfunded expansion of the welfare state. Does Bush regret the way he governed now that Democrats are free to do the same? Apparently no one thought to ask him, or his handlers laid out ground rules prohibiting it.   Continue reading…

Comments Off

Filed under George W. Bush, Oprah Winfrey Show

Sirhan Sirhan, man who assassinated Robert Kennedy, plotted to kill Ted Kennedy, too: FBI

The New York Daily News

Sirhan Sirhan, the man who assassinated Sen. Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, may have tried to take out his brother Ted, too.

A fellow inmate at the federal prison in Soledad, Calif., told the FBI that Sirhan offered him “a million dollars and a car” to kill Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy in 1977, according to a report in Kennedy’s newly-released FBI file (read PDF of report).

The Mexican-American inmate, whose name is redacted, told agents he didn’t know Ted Kennedy was a senator, but recognized that he was the brother of slain President John Kennedy and New York Sen. Bobby Kennedy.

The inmate, who was in the cell next to Sirhan’s for 18 months and befriended the assassin, said Sirhan told him to contact his mother for more details if he decided to take on the hit.

“He advised he declined the contract,” the report states.

The inmate said he didn’t think Sirhan made the offer to anyone else at the prison.

The FBI alerted Kennedy’s office, the Secret Service, the Boston Police Department and the police chief in Barnstable, Mass, near the Kennedy compound on Cape Cod.

The seriousness of the threat, and the reliability of the inmate informant, were never determined.

Sirhan, a mentally unbalanced Palestinian Christian, shot Bobby Kennedy the night he won the California primary – sealing the Democratic nomination – because the senator had promised military support for Israel if elected President.

Sirhan is serving life in prison in California.

Comments Off

Filed under Sirhan Sirhan

Remembering Robert F. Kennedy – November 20, 1925 – June 6, 1968

In the minds of many, especially in the northeast and the west coast, Robert Kennedy’s candidacy was the renewal of a “dream deferred” when his brother, John F. Kennedy was struck down by an assassin’s bullet. Imagine the shock and devastation when Robert F. Kennedy was also taken by an assassin’s bullet.

We remember “Bobby Kennedy” for many different reasons.  I remember his invaluable assistance to his brother, President John F. Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis. 

 I also remember the reception he got from thousands of people on Jamaica Avenue, in Queens, New York, when he made a campaign stop there in 1968. 

I remember the beautiful and sometimes troubled children left without their father for guidance and comfort. 

I remember that awesome smile and him always brushing away that head full of hair from his forehead.  I still remember what might have been…

Comments Off

Filed under Robert F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy