Republicans aim to quash new union rules (AP)

WASHINGTON – Republicans are maneuvering to short-circuit an effort by Democrats on the National Labor Relations Board to approve rules that would quicken the pace of union elections.

The GOP member of the labor board is threatening to resign his post, which would deny the board a quorum and quash the entire process. At the same time, the House is poised Wednesday to approve a GOP bill aimed at short-circuiting moves they consider anti-business. That measure is unlikely to go anywhere in the Senate.

The developments are the latest sign of how intensely business groups are opposing any moves that could help organized labor make new inroads at companies that have long opposed unions.

At the labor board, the Democratic majority was set to take up a proposal Wednesday that would simplify procedures and shorten deadlines for holding union elections after employees at a work site gather enough signatures.

But the board's lone GOP member, Brian Hayes, has threatened to quit the agency over his objection to the planned rules, an unprecedented move that would render the board powerless to approve any new measures at all. The board needs at least three members to make any decisions.

If Hayes leaves, only two members — both Democrats — would remain instead of the five members it's supposed to have. Congressional Republicans have blocked President Barack Obama from filling the other two vacancies at the board.

Under current rules, union elections typically take place within 45-60 days after a union gathers enough signatures to file a petition. Republicans contend the new rules could shorten that time to as little as 10 days.

Unions claim companies often abuse current rules to file frivolous appeals, holding up elections for months or even years. But business groups claim the plan would give unions "quickie" elections without leaving employers enough time to respond.

The board's majority has been rushing to approve the new rules before the end of the year, when the term of one of the two Democratic members expires. A modified plan being considered Wednesday is a limited version of more sweeping rules proposed earlier this year. It would not, for example, require employers to provide a list of worker phone numbers and email addresses in voter lists provided to unions.

A final vote on the rules would take place next month, unless Hayes leaves the board.

Hayes has vowed not to participate at the Wednesday meeting and threatened to resign his post over his objection to the rules, according to a letter from the board's chairman, Mark Pearce, circulated last week. Hayes has declined requests for comment.

Union officials have decried Hayes' threat as a bullying tactic that undermines the board.

"We are shocked by the idea that a partisan difference would shut down the workings of a federal agency," said Peter Colavito, director of government relations for the Service Employees International Union.

Minnesota Rep. John Kline, GOP chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, blamed the board's Democratic majority and called on Pearce to withdraw "his ambush election proposal."

The bitter feud between Hayes and the board's two Democrats is the latest sign of how polarizing the debate over union rights has become. Board members often quarrel over policy differences, depending on which political party is in the majority. But labor experts say a board member has never resigned for the sole purpose of preventing a vote.

"As far as I'm aware, it's unprecedented," said William Gould, a former NLRB chairman during the Clinton administration and now a professor at Stanford Law School. "The board has become more polarized, but this takes it to a different level entirely."

In the House, meanwhile, Republicans are expected to pass a bill that would override any changes to NLRB election rules. The measure would delay any vote on a union for at least 35 days after a petition is filed.

The bill would also overturn a recent board ruling that made it easier for smaller groups of workers within companies to organize bargaining units. Business groups claim so-called "micro-bargaining unions" would allow unions to cherry-pick certain departments or employees within a company.

"Congress must act now to thwart the NLRB's radical regulatory maneuvers," said David French, a vice president for government relations at the National Retail Federation, the world's largest retail trade group.

The federation, whose members include Best Buy Co. and Macy's Inc., claims the board's proposed rules would limit workers access to "information needed to make an informed decision about union representation."

California Rep. George Miller, top Democrat on the House Education and the Workforce committee, has denounced the measure as an "anti-worker, anti-family bill" that would undermine worker rights.

The bill is not expected to go far in the Senate, where Democratic leaders are not likely to bring it to a vote.

___

Follow Sam Hananel on Twitter at http://twitter.com/shananel

View the original article here

Democrats preempting revival of Rev. Jeremiah Wright (Daily Caller)

In an effort to preempt what could be damaging political issue for President Barack Obama’s re-election campaign, Democrats are warning Republicans against reviving the issue of his relationship with controversial ex-pastor Jeremiah Wright.

And in one case, a Democratic operative is getting ahead of any discussion of Wright by implying that raising the issue amounts to playing the race card.

Ted Devine, a Democratic operative who worked for Al Gore and John Kerry, recently accused Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s campaign of using a images of a black church in an ad “to bring back Rev. Wright and race.”

“As someone who does this for a living, there is absolutely no way that’s not intentional,” Devine told The Hill about the video, which doesn’t include any mention of Wright but does feature two brief cutaway shots to an all-black audience. “There is no other rational explanation for that scene other than to suggest a racial reference, and most likely invoke Jeremiah Wright.”

Drew Westin, a professor at Emory University and a prominent progressive commentator, also saw racial overtones in the Romney ad.

“There are three things about the racial composition of the people in the background: For Obama, whenever they’re shown clearly, they’re a mix of whites and blacks. Whenever they’re either presented in dark light so you can’t see, or presented at a speed that makes them subliminal, they’re all black,” Westin told the Huffington Post last week.

“For Romney, there isn’t a black person in the background in any of the scenes he’s in. It’s inconceivable that his team didn’t think to make sure there was at least some diversity in the crowds he was speaking to unless the goal was to juxtapose subliminal black people against white people for Romney,” Westin said.

Pollster Doug Schoen, a Democrat who has been critical of Obama’s performance as president, told The Daily Caller that it would be “wrong-headed” for Republicans to discuss Wright because the issue has “no relevance to this campaign or to Obama’s first term.” (RELATED: Exclusive video: Obama in 2006: I ‘stole’ book title ‘Audacity of Hope’ from ‘my pastor’)

“[It] would be over-reaching and could well backfire against the Republicans,” he added.

During the 2008 election, videos showed Wright famously denouncing the U.S. government during religious services, even saying at one point, “Not God bless America, God damn America!”

The title for Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope,” came from a sermon delivered by Wright. Before controversy erupted during the 2008 election over Wright, Obama praised his former pastor, including in a new video from 2006 published by TheDC this week.

If Democrats are able to remove the issue of Wright from the table by associating it with playing the race card, it could be a major win for the White House and their efforts to appeal to white voters.

A recent study by the liberal Center for American Progress found that Obama would have to win either 47 percent of college-educated white voters or 41 percent of all white voters in order to be re-elected.

Obama won 47 percent of college-educated white voters and 43 percent of all white voters in 2008. But if he fails to meet at least one of the thresholds outlined in the study; white working-class voters could doom his re-election campaign if they turn out for the GOP nominee like they did for Republican candidates in 2010.

However, in terms of strategy, one Republican operative said it’s not necessary to revive the issue.

“Honestly it’s probably not a useful or productive line of attack at this point,” Michael Goldfarb, a former 2008 McCain campaign aide, told TheDC.

“It strikes me that bringing up Wright is not just unnecessary, but a distraction from Obama’s egregious record,” Goldfarb said.

Follow Will on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Isakson becomes first US senator to demand Holder's resignation

Democrats preempting revival of Rev. Jeremiah Wright

Barney Frank: If Gingrich is GOP nominee, Democrats will take back House [VIDEO]

Ask Matt Labash: Blood on his hands: Why gramps should be blamed for fishing out our rivers

Settlement bars Facebook from making 'further deceptive privacy claims'

View the original article here

Senate clears way for passage of big defense bill (AP)

WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats and Republicans are pushing for harsher sanctions against Iran's Central Bank as fears of Tehran developing a nuclear weapon outweigh concerns that any step would drive up oil prices and hit Americans at the gas pump.

The Senate on Wednesday weighed whether to add the sanctions measure to a massive, $662 billion defense bill that moved closer to passage. A vote on the sanctions was likely Thursday.

On Wednesday, lawmakers voted 88-12 to limit debate on the legislation, and looked to wrap up the bill by week's end.

The legislation would authorize funds for military personnel, weapons systems, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and national security programs in the Energy Department. The bill is $27 billion less than what President Barack Obama requested for the budget year beginning Oct. 1 and $43 billion less than what Congress provided to the Pentagon this year.

Tougher sanctions against Iran have widespread support in Congress, reflecting concerns not only for U.S. national security but ally Israel's as well. Last week, the Obama administration announced a new set of penalties against Iran, including identifying for the first time Iran's entire banking sector as a "primary money laundering concern." This requires increased monitoring by U.S. banks to ensure that they and their foreign affiliates avoid dealing with Iranian financial institutions.

But lawmakers pressed ahead with even tougher penalties despite reservations by the administration.

Sens. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., and Mark Kirk, R-Ill., offered an amendment to the defense bill that would target foreign financial institutions that do business with the Central Bank of Iran, barring them from opening or maintaining correspondent operations in the United States. It would apply to foreign central banks only for transactions that involve the sale or purchase of petroleum or petroleum products.

The sanctions on petroleum would only apply if the president determines there is a sufficient alternative supply and if the country with jurisdiction over the financial institution has not significantly reduced its purchases of Iranian oil.

Lawmakers cited the recent International Atomic Energy Agency report that Iran is suspected of clandestine work that is "specific to nuclear weapons," its alleged role in the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States and the attack on the British Embassy in Tehran.

"One of the greatest threats to our nation and our ally Israel is Iran," Menendez said, insisting that the United States must take steps to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

"We cannot, we must not and we will not let that happen," Menendez said, "but the clock is ticking."

Kirk said the amendment was clear: "If you do business with the Central Bank of Iran, you cannot do business with the United States."

The administration harbors concerns about the enforcement of the measure, which has more than 80 backers in the Senate. Denis McDonough, White House deputy national security adviser, held a closed-door Capitol Hill meeting with several senators on Tuesday, including Kirk and Menendez.

After the session, Kirk sought to allay concerns about rising gasoline prices.

"I've had detailed conversations with Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the United States, who described a great willingness by Saudi Arabia to increase (oil) production," Kirk told reporters.

A vote on the amendment was expected on Thursday.

The Senate approved dozens of amendments by voice vote on Wednesday. Among them:

_Linking funds for the Pakistan Counterinsurgency Fund to a requirement that the Obama administration certify to Congress that Pakistan is trying to counter improvised explosive devices.

_Calling on the president to devise a plan, with input from the military and NATO, for accelerating the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan.

_Seeking an urgent intelligence assessment of Libya's stockpile of about 20,000 portable anti-aircraft missiles and the threat they pose to the United States and its allies.

View the original article here

Senate Democrats to offer new tax cut plan (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Senate Democrats plan to offer a new proposal on Monday to extend a popular payroll tax cut amid signals that Republican leaders would accept a compromise that covers the cost to the federal Treasury.

Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, a Democrat, said that the offer would be a "serious attempt to move this ball forward," and avoid a December 31 expiration of the popular tax cut.

The proposal will be put forward by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat, on Monday, Conrad told the "Fox News Sunday" program. He declined to give details.

Conrad called Reid's proposal "a compromise," but a spokesman for Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell said Republicans were not consulted.

President Barack Obama and other Democrats want to expand and continue the payroll tax break for workers and extend it to employers, arguing it would help stimulate the sluggish U.S. economy. They have offered to cover the plan's cost with a new tax on millionaires.

Republicans instead offered to extend the tax break, which reduces the Social Security tax to 4.2 percent from 6.2 percent, and cover its roughly $110 billion cost largely by continuing a federal workers' pay freeze through 2015 and gradually reducing the federal workforce by 10 percent.

The competing plans were defeated on Thursday in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

While declining to discuss details, Conrad said the cost of Reid's proposal would be fully covered and not increase the nation's record $15 trillion debt.

"It will be paid for, it will be in a way that is credible and serious," Conrad said.

SKEPTICISM

Many Republican lawmakers are skeptical that extending the tax cut beyond this year will spur job creation, and they say it will have only a temporary effect on the economy.

Some also argue an extension would take money out of the government-run Social Security retirement program, which is under increasing financial strain.

Democrats contend that revenue from the federal government's general fund - money not earmarked for specific programs or activities - will be used to make up for any loss of funds intended for the Social Security program.

Fearing a possible backlash from voters in the 2012 elections, most Republicans want to at least extend the current tax break. Republican leaders announced last week a willingness to compromise with Democrats on the issue.

Obama has pushed for extending the payroll tax cut as well jobless benefits for the long-term unemployed in campaign-style trips around the nation. The nation's unemployment rate is currently 8.6 percent.

"Probably they both (payroll tax break and unemployment insurance) will be extended," Republican Senator Tom Coburn said on "Fox News Sunday."

The White House, investment banks and some economists have warned that U.S. economic growth could suffer in 2012 if the tax cut for workers is allowed to expire.

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner put himself at odds with some members of his fellow Republicans who are skeptical of its benefits last week when he agreed that extending the tax break would help the economy.

Republican House leaders have not offered a counterproposal, but an aide said the chamber could consider its version of the payroll tax extension as early as this week.

(Editing by Paul Simao)

View the original article here

Democrats See Mitt Romney as Their Biggest Threat (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The first vote in the 2012 Republican primary has yet to be cast, but the Democrats have already targeted GOP front-runner Mitt Romney. According to NPR, the Democratic National Committee recently unleashed a biting TV attack ad on Romney in key primary states.

This maneuver is somewhat unprecedented since the party of an incumbent president rarely goes to this length to attack another party's candidate months before the primary even begins. With the former Massachusetts governor facing stiff competition from Newt Gingrich, the Democrats are clearly hoping to put a dent in Romney's presidential aspirations.

Among the GOP candidates, Romney is arguably the biggest threat to President Barack Obama's re-election bid. The Michigan native has consistently polled well in a hypothetical matchup with the president. The latest Quinnipiac poll shows Obama leading Romney by only 1 percentage point, which is well within the error margin. This is in contrast with the hefty advantage enjoyed by the president over the other Republican candidates.

Romney has also done extremely well with independents -- the prized group one needs to capture to win the presidency. In fact, the same Quinnipiac survey shows the former Massachusetts governor leading all GOP candidates in moderate Republican support. Furthermore, the Real Clear Politics' average of polls puts Romney nearly 17 percentage points ahead of the next strongest rival in independent-rich New Hampshire. The least the Democrats would want is for Romney to ease through the primary process, en route to a showdown with the president.

Gingrich's recent surge in the polls has given the Democrats an opening to put more pressure on the GOP front-runner. The DNC clearly hopes its biting attack ad will help to peel off support for Romney in key primary states. It appears the Democrats would prefer Obama taking on Gingrich instead of Romney. While Gingrich is not a lightweight opponent; he carries much more political baggage than his Republican rival, having involved in politics for decades.

In the immediate term, the DNC's attack ad may actually backfire. Primary voters tend to coalesce around their party's candidates when they are being attacked by the other political party. By singling out Romney, the DNC is giving stature to his campaign.

View the original article here

How Frank's Retirement Hurts Democrats and Helps Republicans (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | When Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., announced today he would retire at the end of his current term, it was a serious blow to the Democrats. As a former political consultant, I know the damage of this retirement goes beyond the committees he sat on or the legislation he attempted to pass. One of the major faces of the party is turning off the lights and going home.

Frank is someone people have gotten to recognize over the years due to the fact he is often a guest on news shows. At times, he has been a voice of the Democrats and has been the go-to-guy in stressful times for his insight. He has gained a reputation for being quick on his feet and strong in his resolve. While I rarely agree with the congressional leader, I have always respected him.

People feel comfortable when they see commentators on the news they recognize. There is something odd in the human psyche that causes us to be more likely to trust people we recognize over those which are unfamiliar to us. With Rep. Frank moving on, the Democrats lose one of those familiar faces that people have learned to trust, or at least semi-accept.

At the same time, Frank works with many of the younger Democrats in Congress and has helped them stay firm in their resolve. These up-and-coming politicians will wake up tomorrow to the reality of one of their leaders giving up on the system. What does this tell them about the future of the Democrats in Congress?

At the same time, since he is walking away due to the redistricting, this may cause some of the other leaders in Congress to become convinced to do the same. Frank thinks the next election will be too difficult due to the redistricting in his state. How many Democrats will become discouraged by the redistricting in their states and place an undue amount of concern on the issue?

Even if Frank's seat goes to another Democrat, the Republicans can still chalk up a win. With one of the loudest voices in Congress being silenced, the Republicans are able to gain more strength. Instead of worrying about battling Frank, now they can focus on whoever had the best chance of carrying his torch.

View the original article here

Congress bickers toward year-end compromise (AP)

By DAVID ESPO and ANDREW TAYLOR, Associated Press David Espo And Andrew Taylor, Associated Press – Thu Dec 1, 5:10 pm ET

WASHINGTON – Republicans and Democrats bickered and blustered Thursday toward eventual compromise legislation extending expiring Social Security payroll tax cuts and long-term jobless benefits through 2012, each seeking political advantage for elections almost a year distant.

The White House weighed in with a written statement opposing the GOP approach, which presidential press secretary Jay Carney said includes "window dressing" hung by Republicans seeking to cut costs by freezing federal workers' pay through 2015 and reducing the government bureaucracy.

By contrast, President Barack Obama and most Democrats in Congress want to extend and expand the payroll tax cut and pay for it by slapping a 3.25 percent surtax on incomes of $1 million or more.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Republican opponents "insist on helping the very wealthy while turning their back on the middle class," while another member of the leadership, Sen. Richard Durbin of Illinois, said they "put up a transparent fig leaf" that would kill jobs rather than create them.

In remarks on the Senate floor, the Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, said the issue reflected poorly on both Obama and his allies in Congress.

"There's no reason folks should suffer even more than they already are from the president's failure to turn this jobs crisis around," he said. "But there's also no reason we should pay for that relief by raising taxes on the very employers we're counting on to help jolt this economy back to life."

That left both parties seeking the political high ground — Democrats accusing Republicans of siding with the rich, and Republicans countering that Democrats were taxing small business owners who create jobs — in advance of a pair of Senate test votes expected late Thursday or Friday morning.

Neither of two rival measures was expected to gain the 60 votes necessary for passage, a double-barreled rejection likely to clear the way for talks on a compromise.

Across the Capitol, House Republicans readied legislation of their own that aides said likely would include the tax cut extension as well as renewed benefits for long-term victims of the worst recession in decades and a painfully slow recovery.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, made clear that all costs must be paid for, and said higher taxes were a non-starter.

"Republicans are ready to work with the president and the Democrats to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment insurance temporarily, but they must be offset with spending cuts elsewhere," he said.

There were other issues under negotiation as lawmakers looked toward the end of a highly partisan year, the first in a new era of divided government.

Boehner said lawmakers were discussing a bill to avoid a scheduled 27 percent cut on Jan. 1 in reimbursement rates for doctors treating Medicare patients.

The two parties also looked for agreement on a measure to fund the government through the Sept. 30 end of the budget year.

Boehner added that he likely would try to include some of the 20 House-passed bills that are part of a GOP jobs package in one of the year-end wrap-up bills. Most of the measures would block federal regulations on various industries, and are stalled in the Senate.

With unemployment hovering around 9 percent nationally, Obama urged Congress in September to renew and expand the Social Security payroll tax cut for workers that he signed a year ago, and called as well for an extension of benefits that can cover up to 99 weeks for the long-term jobless.

State unemployment insurance programs guarantees coverage for six months, but as in previous downturns, Congress approved additional benefits in 2008. Expiration of those payments would mean an average loss of $296 in weekly income for 1.8 million households in January, and a total of 6 million throughout 2012.

On the tax cut extension, Republicans prefer a simple one-year continuation of the existing law, jettisoning Obama's call to deepen the cut while expanding it to cover an employer's portion of payroll taxes.

To pay for the measure, Senate Republicans proposed freezing federal workers' pay through 2015 — extending a two-year-freeze recommended by Obama — and reducing the bureaucracy by 200,000 jobs through attrition.

The bill also would raise Medicare premiums for the wealthy, and take steps to deny unemployment benefits and food stamps to anyone with a seven-figure income.

Republicans circulated statistics from the Internal Revenue Service reporting that tax filers with $1 million or more in income received a total of $20.8 million in unemployment benefits in 2009, the latest year for which figures are available. Their bill would impose a 100 percent tax on those payments — an irony for a party that historically has opposed any tax increases.

____

Associated Press writer Donna Cassata contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Republicans and Democrats Watch Out: Centrists Are on the Rise! (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Polls show that as many as a third of all Americans identify themselves as moderate or centrist, yet the candidates for public office seem to be getting more extreme every election cycle.

I have always considered myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I am in favor of balancing the budget and reducing spending, but not of gutting social services to do it. I also favor equal rights for same sex couples and basically staying out of other people's bedrooms.

Who's my candidate? You'd think the major parties would care, but all the fury centers around which contender can capture the evangelical Christian vote. What about those of us - of all races, genders and socioeconomic classes - who want to see lawmakers take a well-reasoned, balanced approach to solving the serious problems we face today?

I usually vote for some Democrats and some Republicans, but frankly, I find most of those vying for the Republican presidential nomination alarmingly inappropriate. Some of these guys can barely put a coherent thought together, and yes, Mr. Cain, it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of international affairs to be president.

I shudder to think what would happen if some of these guys became president. But where are the good alternatives? It seems that most intelligent, rational and capable individuals don't want the job. Who can blame them?

The extremists play the part of the squeaky wheel, shouting down the voices of reason. It's not in the nature of moderates to be that loud. We're the mediators, the problem-solvers, the ones who try to facilitate positive solutions.

Question: How can you tell when things are running smoothly? Answer: You don't notice them.

I'd like to see one of the six House Republicans who refused to sign Grover Norquist's tax pledge run for President. How about Frank Wolf? He's one of the few Republicans to vote against making the Bush era tax cuts permanent. Here's a guy who understands that fiscal responsibility means considering both increases in taxes and decreases in spending to balance the budget. I don't agree with everything in his voting record, but it's better than most.

As the percentage of moderate voters grows, perhaps we will gain enough political clout to convince the major parties that the middle ground is where creative solutions spring to life. It's time they started to care what we think.

View the original article here

Texas asks top court to stop congressional map (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Texas asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday to stop implementation of an interim Texas map for congressional districts that was crafted by a panel of federal judges and could favor minorities and Democrats in 2012 elections.

Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott made the emergency request in opposing the court-drawn congressional redistricting plan. Abbott, a Republican, asked the Supreme Court on Monday to suspend maps created by the judges for 2012 state Legislature elections.

Abbott argued the federal district court panel in San Antonio erred by refusing to defer to the Legislature's plan, and that the wholesale revisions of the maps were unjustified.

The maps, which could lead to greater representation for minorities and Democrats, were drafted earlier this month after minority groups challenged the original plans adopted by the Republican-dominated state Legislature.

Rewriting the Texas districts has become a major political and legal issue because of sharp growth over the past decade in the state's population.

Texas received four new congressional seats after the 2010 U.S. census, largely because of the rapidly growing Hispanic population. The state Legislature's plan created only one new heavily Hispanic district.

The U.S. Justice Department, which determines whether new maps in some states comply with federal civil rights laws, opposed the state's congressional redistricting plan.

Abbott said the court-drawn plan dramatically changed more than half of the 150 districts in the Texas House of Representatives, altered five of 31 state Senate districts and changed all 36 congressional districts from the state's plan.

Candidates for the 2012 elections must file by December 15, 2011. The primary elections are scheduled for March 6.

"Legal, delayed elections are preferable to legally flawed, timely elections," Abbott said in asking the Supreme Court to put on hold the primary elections if necessary.

The interim maps drawn by the judges were designed to remain in place until the legal battle over the redistricting plans has been resolved.

A separate three-judge panel in Washington is expected to hold a trial in considering whether to approve or reject the redistricting plans.

The Supreme Court cases are Perry v. Perez, No 11-A520, Perry v. Davis, No. 11-A521, and Perry v. Perez, No. 11-A536.

(Reporting by James Vicini; Editing by Peter Cooney)

View the original article here

Democrats Bailing on Obama (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | In 2008, a mystery candidate named Barack Obama made history by becoming the first African American president of the United States.

Today, Obama has a record, a very public record, with very real consequences. Among his most notable achievements: the most deficit spending of any president from George Washington to Ronald Reagan, stagnant unemployment, a record number of Americans living below poverty level and dependent on some form of government assistance and the first downgrade of the U.S. credit rating in United States history -- all while setting the national record for most rounds of golf played by a sitting president.

Republicans and the tea party tried to warn you. But most didn't listen. They were too busy chanting Hope and Change and calling anyone who didn't buy into it a racist. Now, as all those admonitions of economic and social chaos continue to come to ugly fruition, even Congressional Democrats, liberal pundits, pollsters and once rabidly loyal members of the mainstream media are starting to squirm with discomfort.

It's all about saving face, mind you. They knew the chaos would come too. They just know it's just getting harder for them to keep spinning three years of failure into a believable success story without looking like a fool. So now, just as Bush loyalists turned on George near the end of his struggling presidency, the most devoted of Obama's public relations support unit are bailing.

In August, Politico reported Democrat strategist James Carville offering a single word of advice for the struggling president: "Panic." On Monday, Patrick Caddell, President Carter's pollster, and Douglas Schoen, who advised President Bill Clinton's re-election, suggested through an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal that it's time for Obama to "step aside" and give the nomination to Hillary Clinton.

According to a recent CNN/ORC International Poll 26 percent of Democrats would prefer that their party nominate another candidate for president. While that is hardly a majority, that number was only 18 percent a month ago.

In September, after listening to Obama's absurd class warfare rhetoric that the "millionaires and billionaires" need to pay their "fair share" of taxes, even the Associated Press had to call him out and bear the facts that prove "they already are."

Because of their highly unpopular fiscal policies, like Obamacare and the waste of his 2009 trillion-dollar stimulus, Democrats were pummeled in the 2010 midterms. Losses in the Sept. 13 House special elections in New York and Nevada were again attributed directly to Obama.

In anticipation of another drubbing in 2012, seventeen House Democrats - including the 16-term Democrat from Massachusetts, Rep. Barney Frank -- have decided not to seek reelection.

As Obama tours the country on his own reelection tour, incumbent Democrats who want to keep their seats are avoiding him like the plague.

After contacting over a dozen Democrats in the moderate Blue Dog Caucus Politico found only a few were even "willing to comment on whether they supported Obama's reelection bid."

Unable or simply unwilling to come through with those promises of Hope and Change the New York Times reported that Democratic operatives for the 2012 election have decided that "the party will explicitly abandon the white working class."

Once believing she and her husband were "well beyond the hot dogs and beans era" of their lives and finding herself "exhausted" at defending Obama - the man "who said he was going to change things in a meaningful way for the middle class," Velma Hart asked the president to his face at a Washington D.C. town hall a year ago. "Is this my new reality?"

Having observed the stark difference between Obama "talk" and Obama "reality" for three years even Chris 'I Use to Have a Thrill Up My Leg' Matthews wants to know; "Is this it? Is this as good as it gets?"

According to Gallup, 60 percent of Americans disapprove of Obama's effort to create jobs, 67 percent disapprove of his handling of the economy and the deficit and 73 percent believe it's all getting worse.

Republicans and the tea party tried to warn you. Now, after three years of the economic chaos Obama has inflicted upon the nation, their new message is simply; "We told you so."

View the original article here

Democrat leaders merge religion and party (Daily Caller)

Top Democratic legislators are promising to harness religion to help them win 2012 voters, and are also declaring that the Democratic Party’s actions are the expression of their religious obligations.

“The Democrats’ values and core agenda, and President Obama’s accomplishments, are reflective of the tenets and teachings and lessons of my faith as a Jewish woman… [and] no, there aren’t things that are informed by my faith than are different from the values and ideals of the Democratic Party,” said Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Wasserman Schultz and other Democrats, including Rep. James Clyburn, spoke at a Nov. 30 press event in the DNC’s headquarters intended to promote the party’s 2012 religious outreach.

When asked by The Daily Caller if the party’s blending of religion and politics is blurring distinctions between church and state, Clyburn said, “We are in recognition of the fundamental aspect of all of the great religions … love, the golden rule, of doing unto others as you would have be done unto you.”

A Washington Post reporter how the Democrats planned to work with black churches. In “the African American community, the church vote is very important… [but] the support for the president may not be as strong as it was,” the Post’s reporter said.

“As we organize going forward to next year,” Clyburn responded, “there will be be significant efforts on our part to reconnect the fundamentals of our policies to the [religious] teachings that we all learned, be it in the Old Testament or the New Testament.”

In the past, “we were so strong in our doctrine that there ought to be a separation of church and state, that we often took it to an extreme, and I thinks that’s how we got disconnected” from voters, said Clyburn, who heads the House Democrats’ Religious Outreach Committee, established after the party lost the 2004 presidential race.

“I speak with faith leaders every day, and a number of African American faith leaders,” said Rev. Derrick Harkins, the director of faith outreach at the DNC. “I find the issue is not a lack of enthusiasm, but the question is often raised ‘How can we be effective in this election cycle?’”

This use of religion for political purposes “will work with the less discerning” religious voters, said Richard Land, director of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. But, he warned, “whenever you employ religion to justify your own positions, which may or may not be biblical, it cheapens and desacrilizes religion.”

In 2006, Obama declared at a campaign rally that he started going to church after hearing a sermon from Jeremiah Wright, a controversial, politically connected, black reverend in Chicago. The sermon, Obama said, said, “‘The world as it is is not the world as it has to be,’ … [and] I loved that idea in my own life because I thought that’s a philosophy I believe.” (RELATED: Obama in 2006: ‘I stole’ book title ‘Audacity of Hope’ from Rev. Wright, ‘my pastor’)

In Obama’s 2011 Thanksgiving address,  he sidelined any reference to God, instead saying that Americans’ rights to freely speak, vote, assemble and own property depends on the approval of other Americans. “No matter how tough things are right now, we still give thanks for that most American of blessings, the chance to determine our own destiny,” he said.

Obama, however, did use biblical language to bolster the Democrats’ support for entitlements: “This sense of mutual responsibility — the idea that I am my brother’s keeper; that I am my sister’s keeper — has always been a part of what makes our country special,” Obama said. “If we keep that spirit alive, if we support each other, and look out for each other, and remember that we’re all in this together, then I know that we too will overcome the challenges of our time.”

“I would look at what Barack Obama’s policies and practices are, rather than what he may have or may not have mentioned,” Clyburn told TheDC. “I believe the president’s speech was very appropriate,” he continued, because, “The first Thanksgiving was all about celebrating a freedom to worship in one’s own fashion. … They gathered to give thanks not to any one God, but to give thanks in celebration of some omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent being.”

The meal was shared between Indians and the Pilgrims, who were members of a specific sect of English Protestants who worshiped the Christian God described in the Bible.

Speakers also caricatured Republicans’ beliefs as heartless and un-Christian.

A new generation of “values voters,” said Young Democrats of America President Rod Snyder, “will reject the GOP’s fend-for-yourself theology that would roll back health care benefits for younger Americans and deny quality education, all while preserving tax breaks for the wealthiest 2 percent.”

“If your philosophy is to take away from the needy in order to give to the greedy,” said Clyburn, “that’s anathema to my Christian faith.”

Land predicted the Democrats’ emphasis on religious will rise as the 2012 election gets closer. Obama’s speech “had all kinds of religious allusions when he ran for president, but since then they’ve disappeared,” he said. “He’s now playing golf instead of going to Church.”

All is forgiven, Meghan McCain

Democrat leaders merge religion and party

Team Huntsman stresses conservative record; pushes back on moderate meme

Norquist: 'Sen. Coburn was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome'

Romney aide laments fall of Cain: 'He keeps Perry down'

View the original article here

Democrats to the White Working Class -- Drop Dead (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | A recent piece in the New York Times suggests the Democratic Party is preparing to toss working class whites, who have been part of the winning coalition for the Democrats since Franklin Roosevelt, under the bus.

The new coalition for the Democratic Party will consist of educated elites that will include "professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists" and poorer voters, primarily blacks and Hispanics. Working class whites have long be alienated from the Democrats since the phenomenon of the "Reagan Democrats," who switched to the Republican Party in the 1980s. Democrats lost this demographic group by 30 percent and more in the 2010 midterms.

The educated elites will be bought off with the support of rights to self expression, abortion, gay marriage and a leftward tilt on the environment and defense policy. The less affluent minorities will be bought off by new social spending and government assistance.

While the Democrats hope to hold their losses among working American whites down, one wonders how that could be accomplished if the sense grows that working people have been abandoned. Someone has to pay for all of that social spending that will benefit the poor, after all. Working whites also remain skeptical of government sanctioned hedonism, environmental regulations that stifle jobs, and cuts in defense spending that invite aggression from America's enemies.

Rush Limbaugh, the radio talk show host never slow to pick up on a political trend, suggested the Democrats are saying, on his Monday, broadcast, "If you work, we don't want you."

In a way, the new Democratic election strategy is a reaction to the tea party movement, which has risen from discontented working and middle class people who feel that their government has become too big and too intrusive. Instead of listening to the complaints of the tea party and adjusting their agenda to attract tea party voters, the Democrats have done the equivalent of extending them the middle finger. Instead they have embraced the Occupy Wall Street crowd, which is crying out for government handouts and entitlements.

This is a dangerous strategy. The tea party, consisting as it does of people who work and make the country run, are more numerous and more organized than the constituencies the Democrats are embracing. Thus the Democratic Party might have considered itself to permanent minority status.

View the original article here

With Frank leaving, Mass. Dems ponder bleak future (AP)

BOSTON – Rep. Barney Frank's decision to step down at the end of his term is the latest jolt to the bruised ego of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, which once counted Kennedys, House speakers and a president among its ranks.

Instead, some of the state's best-known political figures are now Republicans, among them Sen. Scott Brown and presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

"For a long time, Massachusetts Democrats have felt they played a special role in the national Democratic Party," said Tufts University political science professor Jeffrey Berry. "I think that has gone at this point. There is no one in Congress from Massachusetts who has that stature now."

Frank has long been a liberal lightning rod and is the highest-profile member of the state's all-Democratic House delegation. His announcement follows the decision of another Massachusetts representative, John Olver, a member of the House Appropriations panel, not to seek re-election.

Add to those impending departures the death of Sen. Edward Kennedy in 2009 and the state's loss of a House seat in the most recent redistricting process, and some Democrats in Massachusetts are wondering whether the glory days are behind them.

While the state's senior senator, John Kerry, has a powerful perch as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and often serves as a troubleshooter across the globe for the Obama administration, there's been plenty of speculation that if Obama wins re-election, Kerry could be tapped to succeed Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That would rob Massachusetts of a strong Senate presence.

Part of the decline is due to inexorable demographic changes that are working against the relatively small Northeastern state.

While Southern and Southwestern states have experienced population booms, Massachusetts has seen anemic growth, leading to the loss of one of its 10 seats in Congress.

The prospect of running in a newly redrawn district with 325,000 new constituents, combined with the Democrats' loss of control of the House, prompted Frank's decision not to run again after more than three decades in Congress, the 71-year-old said.

"One of the advantages to me of not running for office is that I don't even have to pretend to be nice to people I don't like," the famously acerbic Frank said.

There was a time not so long ago when Massachusetts Democrats held outsized political sway in Washington.

That power may have reached a high water mark during the country's post-World War II years. Massachusetts politicians held the powerful post of House speaker for nearly 20 years, first under John McCormack from 1962 to 1971 and then again under Thomas P. "Tip" O'Neill, who wielded the gavel from 1977 to 1987.

During that same span, another Massachusetts Democrat — John F. Kennedy — was elected president, and his brother Edward began what would be a nearly half-century of service in the Senate.

Even as the nation's population growth shifted away from the Northeast, Massachusetts Democrats still harbored big political dreams. Both Kerry and former Gov. Michael Dukakis won the Democratic nomination for president but lost in the general election.

One reason Massachusetts Democrats gained power in Washington is that they were able to easily win election again and again at home, giving them prized seniority on congressional committees, according to Berry.

Before Republicans won control of the House, Frank was chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and was key in crafting the Dodd-Frank bill, which contained the stiffest restrictions on banks and Wall Street since the Great Depression.

"That's the real loss, because committee chairs have enormous power to push projects and send money into various accounts that will help their home districts," Berry said.

Not everyone is ready to consign the state party's best days to the history books.

Massachusetts Democratic Party chairman John Walsh concedes the departure of Frank and Olver and the death of Kennedy are blows — but are also part of the inevitable progression of politics.

He said the strength of the Massachusetts Democratic Party is the depth of its political farm league.

"We keep electing good strong, capable Democrats. We constantly have a stream of our leaders who are moving up the line," Walsh said. "I think Massachusetts has a place at the table not because of geography and not because of size, but because of the talent we have."

Walsh also pointed out the close political and personal relationship between Gov. Deval Patrick and President Barack Obama.

The immediate future of Massachusetts' reputation for political king-making may be in the hands of a Republican. While Romney is running for the GOP presidential nomination, he's been forced to play down his signature political accomplishment as Massachusetts governor — passage of a landmark 2006 health care law.

Brown surprised many in the state by capturing the seat formerly held by Edward Kennedy in a special election last year after Kennedy's death from brain cancer. Democrats are pinning some of their hopes for the future on Harvard professor and consumer activist Elizabeth Warren, who has fired up the party's liberal base as she works to unseat Brown in next year's election.

Despite Frank's departure, the state still boasts some powerful Democrats with seniority and political muscle.

The dean of the delegation, Rep. Edward Markey of Malden, who was elected in 1976, is the ranking Democrat on the Natural Resources Committee and has been a leading party voice on climate change, nuclear safety, consumer issues and environmental matters.

Rep. Michael Capuano is a close ally of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and has emerged as a strong inside player on Capitol Hill.

Rep. Richard Neal of Springfield, a senior Democrat on the House Ways and Means Committee, is seen as a potential chairman of that powerful tax-writing panel. Rep. Jim McGovern of Worcester, meanwhile, is seen as a possible chairman of the House Rules Committee down the road.

_____

Associated Press writers Andrew Miga in Washington and Bob Salsberg in Boston contributed to this report.

View the original article here

Adwatch: DNC ad targets Romney over flip-flops (AP)

WASHINGTON – TITLE: "Trapped."

LENGTH: 30 seconds

AIRING: In Albuquerque, N.M., Raleigh, N.C., Columbus, Ohio, Pittsburgh, Milwaukee and Washington through Wednesday.

KEY IMAGES: The Democratic National Committee ad targeting Republican Mitt Romney opens like the trailer to a movie, flashing the words, "From the creator of `I'm running for office for Pete's sake,' comes the story of two men trapped in one body."

Romney used the "Pete's sake" phrase during an October debate to respond to Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who asked why the former Massachusetts governor had used a lawn care service that employed illegal immigrants. Romney said he had urged the gardening service to stop employing illegal immigrants.

"Look,'" Romney said he told the service, "you can't have any illegals working on our property. I'm running for office, for Pete's sake! I can't have illegals!"

The ad shows mirror images of Romney and then cuts to a fireball explosion between profile images of Romney with the words, "Mitt vs. Mitt."

It then highlights the issues of abortion rights and health care, with clips of Romney apparently taking opposite positions on both.

ANALYSIS: Six weeks before Republican primary voters begin choosing a nominee, the DNC is trying to use the ad to paint Romney as someone who will change his positions and say anything to get elected.

Republican officials said the ad buy was minor — about $14,000 on cable and broadcast outlets in the six television markets — but the spot reflects the states where Democrats are trying to undermine Romney and reinforce President Barack Obama's message to voters. In 2008, Obama carried all five states — New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — and the states are important to his re-election campaign.

Democrats argue that Romney's record has received little scrutiny during the primary contests with former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, businessman Herman Cain and Texas Gov. Rick Perry, and they want voters to know about Romney's inconsistencies. Party leaders argue that Romney has a lack of core convictions while Obama is trying to help middle class voters rebound during tough economic times.

The attack focuses on what has proven to be a key Romney weakness, his shifting of positions he once held as a Senate candidate in Massachusetts, and later as governor.

On health care, Romney has said he will try to repeal the federal health care law that was based in part on his health care plan in Massachusetts. He says that states, not Washington, should push health care policies to help the uninsured.

Romney previously supported abortion rights but as a presidential candidate has said state law should guide abortion rights and Roe v. Wade should be reversed by a future Supreme Court.

In response to the ad, Romney's campaign blasted Obama's handling of the economy, saying the White House didn't want to have to run against Romney and "be held accountable for the many failures of this administration." It reflected a growing mantra from Republicans that the nation's longstanding economic problems — 9 percent unemployment, a fragile housing market and poor consumer confidence — will lead to a referendum on Obama's presidency next year and few other issues will matter.

"Instead of focusing on the economy and creating jobs, President Obama and Democrats are focused on tearing down Mitt Romney," said Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul. Foreshadowing a potential general election matchup, the Romney campaign orchestrated conference calls in which several Romney supporters — including Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., former Iowa GOP Chairman Brian Kennedy and former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty — criticized Obama's stewardship of the economy.

The 2012 election is nearly a year away but the DNC ad and the response from Romney's team shows that intensity level is not likely to slow down anytime soon.

View the original article here

Democrats to pursue protections for voting rights (AP)

WASHINGTON – Democrats said Thursday they are planning a major effort to protect voting rights in the 2012 election after several states passed voter identification laws and restrictions on early voting and same day registration.

Concerned over what they call voter suppression efforts in states, party officials said they were organizing on a number of fronts to overturn some of the measures, educate voters on the types of documents necessary to vote and pursue lawsuits if necessary.

"We have a history of challenging these matters in court if need be. We'll be more than prepared to continue that into the future," said Will Crossley, the Democratic National Committee's counsel and director of voter protection.

Kansas, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Wisconsin have passed laws this year that allow voters without the required photo ID to cast provisional ballots, but the voters must return to a specific location with that ID within a certain time limit for their ballots to count. Efforts to restrict early voting have been approved in Florida, Ohio and Wisconsin.

Party officials contend blacks, Hispanics, senior citizens and the poor are less likely to have required photo IDs and worry that the laws could lead to some voters being disenfranchised if they fail to carry an ID with them. They said early voting among black voters was key to Barack Obama's success in the 2008 election in North Carolina and Florida and could complicate efforts there next year.

"We're aggressively engaged in making sure that we help voters move these obstacles and barriers that are being put in their way that are essentially designed to rig an election when Republicans can't win these elections on the merits," said Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC head.

Republicans said the laws were designed to deal with mounting administrative costs and to eliminate voter fraud, citing the activities of ACORN, a now defunct political advocacy group. Congress cut off ACORN's federal money in 2010 following allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement.

"Knowing President Obama is facing a steep climb to re-election, Democrats are resorting to scare tactics rather than addressing voter fraud cases," said Kirsten Kukowski, a Republican National Committee spokeswoman.

Democratic officials point to success in Maine, where voters repealed a new state law that required voters to register at least two days before an election, restoring Election Day voter registration. In Ohio, party activists say they have gathered enough signatures to prevent a law reducing the number of days of early voting from taking effect until residents can vote in a referendum next year.

View the original article here

Michigan Moves Toward More Charter Schools (ContributorNetwork)

The Michigan House Education Committee approved lifting several restrictions on the number, spacing and style of charter schools. House Republicans favored the bill, but it still has to pass Senate democrats who oppose it, says CBS News Detroit. Here's a Q-and-A about charter schools and public school academies in Michigan.

What is a charter school?

Charter schools are public schools that are owned and governed by private organizations or universities. National Charter School Resource Center defines charter schools as "independently operated schools that are allowed to operate with more autonomy than traditional public schools in exchange for increased accountability." Charter schools are also referred to as PSAs (Public School Academy). The Michigan Department of Education says they are held to the same standards as other public schools, including open vs. selective enrollment, anti-discrimination practices, immunizations and teacher certification. The perks of charters schools, supporters say, are freedom to make more educational decisions and accountability based on student needs not state-mandated guidelines.

How are charter schools funded?

With Schools of Choice provisions in the State School Aid Act, parents may choose where to send their children. With the child goes all or most of his per-student state funding vouchers. Governing organizations also invest money and apply for grants, but state dollars are the primary source of income. Charter schools are in competition with each other and with public schools for ADA (average daily enrollment) funds.

How does a charter school evolve?

As PBS explains, "A group of people--educators, parents, community leaders, educational entrepreneurs or others - write the charter plan describing the school's guiding principles, governance structure, and applicable accountability measures. If the state approves the charter, the state funds the charter on a per pupil basis."

What charter school restrictions are changing in Michigan?

Most states, including Michigan have placed restrictions on how many charters can operate in an area. Currently, Michigan has 255 charter schools, but if the measure passes congress, as it's expected to by the end of the year, that cap may be lifted. Other legislation lifts some restrictions on cyber schools.

Why the debate over more charter schools?

While charter schools were initially operated by colleges and educational institutions, charters are now available to private for-profit groups. Opponents are concerned that profit-based charters with a vested interest and access to public funds negatively impacts quality of education. Michigan Parents for Schools says that further that the charter school bills would prevent teachers from unionizing and make it easier for administrators to hire from independent contracting groups rather than hiring teachers directly.

Marilisa Kinney Sachteleben writes about people, places, events and issues in her native "Pure Michigan."

View the original article here

Republicans and Democrats Watch Out: Centrists on Rise! (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | Polls show that as many as a third of all Americans identify themselves as moderate or centrist, yet the candidates for public office seem to be getting more extreme every election cycle.

I have always considered myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I am in favor of balancing the budget and reducing spending, but not of gutting social services to do it. I also favor equal rights for same sex couples and basically staying out of other people's bedrooms.

Who's my candidate? You'd think the major parties would care, but all the fury centers around which contender can capture the evangelical Christian vote. What about those of us - of all races, genders and socioeconomic classes - who want to see lawmakers take a well-reasoned, balanced approach to solving the serious problems we face today?

I usually vote for some Democrats and some Republicans, but frankly, I find most of those vying for the Republican presidential nomination alarmingly inappropriate. Some of these guys can barely put a coherent thought together, and yes, Mr. Cain, it is necessary to have a thorough knowledge of international affairs to be president.

I shudder to think what would happen if some of these guys became president. But where are the good alternatives? It seems that most intelligent, rational and capable individuals don't want the job. Who can blame them?

The extremists play the part of the squeaky wheel, shouting down the voices of reason. It's not in the nature of moderates to be that loud. We're the mediators, the problem-solvers, the ones who try to facilitate positive solutions.

Question: How can you tell when things are running smoothly? Answer: You don't notice them.

I'd like to see one of the six House Republicans who refused to sign Grover Norquist's tax pledge run for President. How about Frank Wolf? He's one of the few Republicans to vote against making the Bush era tax cuts permanent. Here's a guy who understands that fiscal responsibility means considering both increases in taxes and decreases in spending to balance the budget. I don't agree with everything in his voting record, but it's better than most.

As the percentage of moderate voters grows, perhaps we will gain enough political clout to convince the major parties that the middle ground is where creative solutions spring to life. It's time they started to care what we think.

View the original article here

Mitt Romney on DNC ‘flip’ ad: ‘Bring it on.’ (The Ticket)

HIALEAH, Fla.--Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney summed up his response to a new Democratic Party video accusing him of flip-flopping in three words: "Bring it on."

"They want to throw the primary process to anybody but me. But bring it on," Romney said after a speech at a Latin food company warehouse west of Miami. "We're ready for them."

The ad, released by the Democratic National Committee Monday, shows clips of Romney giving conflicting answers to several policy questions over the years, playing into the theme that he's an inconsistent candidate.

"I don't know what the Democrats are so afraid of," Romney added.

Romney made the comments on his first stop on a day-long swing across Florida today, with speeches in Hialeah, Naples and Tampa.

Along the way, Romney secured the endorsement of key members of the South Florida Cuban community, Florida Republican Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and former Rep. Lincoln Diaz-Balart, all major critics of President Obama's efforts to open economic channels with the island nation. Romney announced Tuesday that the trio would serve as foreign policy advisers to his campaign.

Other popular Yahoo! News stories:

Want more of our best political stories? Visit The Ticket or connect with us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.

View the original article here

Will Mitt Romney’s Lack of Political Experience Hinder Him? (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | In the 2008 election, Republicans criticized Barack Obama for his lack of political experience. Democrats turned the tables on Republicans on the experience argument when the GOP nominated Sarah Palin for vice president.

Now Republicans are trying to decide upon their nominee for president. One of their leading candidates is Mitt Romney, who is among the many who labeled Obama as "inexperienced" in his 2010 book. Romney may have been in business for awhile (like George W. Bush), but his political resume is relatively thin.

He served a single term as governor of Massachusetts. Other candidates like Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, Rick Perry and even Rick Santorum have many more years in office. Romney keeps touting his business credentials, but that's not the same as political experience. If Romney manages to win the nomination and get by President Obama, will that lack of political experience come back to haunt him?

To test this, I look at a recent CSPAN survey of who the best presidents were, according to a panel of historians. The best presidents include George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Harry S. Truman. This survey also rated the worst presidents, which count James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, Franklin Pierce, Warren G. Harding, and William Henry Harrison on that list.

Political experience is measured in years in Congress, as governor and as vice president. Using this data, the following 10 presidents (best and worst) receive the following ranking: Buchanan (20 years), A. Johnson (18 years), Truman (10 years), Pierce (nine years), F. Roosevelt (four years), Harding (six years), T. Roosevelt (three years), Washington and Lincoln (two years each) and Harrison (0 years).

As you can see, those presidents with the worst rankings for competence tended to have more political experience. Presidents who tended to score well on such rankings of effectiveness have very little political experience.

You would think this would benefit Romney. He really doesn't have to have a lot of political experience to be a good president. Yet harping on the experience issue when critiquing his opponent isn't likely to help the one-term Massachusetts governor.

It not only calls attention to his own lack of political experience, but also reminds voters of Obama's record. The president has served seven years in the Illinois legislature, three years in the U.S. Senate and four years as chief executive, dwarfing Romney's political experience. But even though Obama destroys Romney when it comes to political experience, remember that one could say the same thing about James Buchanan and Abraham Lincoln.

View the original article here

In Senate's Approval of Defense Bill, Indefinite Detention of Citizens Ignored (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | In an evening vote, the U.S. Senate approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 Thursday, according to USAToday.com, with high profile sections 1031 and 1032 intact. With all senators voting, the roll call was 93 favoring passage and 7 opposing. Senate.gov shows that three Democrats, three Republicans and one Independent opposed passage of the measure. It's apparent to me that the idea of the United States becoming a police state was not vile enough for those 93 senators.

Sections 1031 and 1032 empower the military to detain American citizens on United States soil indefinitely. Although the stated intention of these sections indicates the intent is to allow the arrest and detention of terrorists linked to al-Qaeda, the wording is broad enough to allow the same treatment for anyone deemed to be a threat to national security.

Such broad wording for something that goes against the very rights given to each American by the Constitution, including representation and a speedy trial of peers, could be used very subversively in the hands of the wrong people.

Yes, it's true the country needs the NDAA to be approved, but at least three senators (Udall, Rand and Feinstein) proposed amendments to NDAA, Senate Bill 1867 to remove the indefinite detention wording applying to citizens in this country. Three times the Senate voted to allow what amounts to the military taking over the job of both civil law enforcement and the civil judiciary.

Sections 1031 and 1032 were opposed by CIA Director David Petraeus and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta; the military is not interested in taking on these additional responsibilities. All those who voted for passage of S.B.1867 must know something these two men and concerned citizens do not know.

The House of Representatives passed their own version of the NDAA before sending it to the Senate for a vote. The House bill did not contain sections 1031 or 1032; they were added by Senator Levin of Michigan as the sponsor. Now the two legislative bodies will have to hash out the differences before the bill can be sent to President Obama for consideration. There may yet be time for citizens to wield the power of their views with their elected officials.

Smack dab in the middle of the baby boomer generation , L.L. Woodard is a proud resident of "The Red Man" state. With what he hopes is an everyman's view of life's concerns both in his state and throughout the nation, Woodard presents facts and opinions based on common-sense solutions.

View the original article here

Occupy Wall Street May Help or Hinder Democrats (ContributorNetwork)

The Occupy Wall Street is taking a dynamic new turn. About two dozen protesters left their encampment at Zuccotti Park to being a trek to Washington, D.C. The group's aim is to show up in the capital Nov. 23, the deadline for the congressional "super committee" to reveal its findings to Congress to cut $1.5 trillion in government spending. Occupy the Highway is determined to make its presence known in the nation's capital.

Politicians have gotten involved with the Occupy Wall Street movement. Depending upon how the protests are viewed by the American public, Democrats may either be helped or hindered by the movement.

Polls

Two recent polls seem to suggest the Americans are becoming more aware of a widening income gap. Sixty-one percent of people polled by the Washington Post and ABC News say they believe the income gap is widening in the United States. More importantly, 60 percent say the federal government should do something about it. A Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll states 76 percent of its respondents feel the government should reduce the power of major banks and corporations.

This income gap is precisely why some Occupy Wall Street protesters have taken their demands to some of the richest individuals in the United States. One person walking to Washington, D.C., stated the purpose of the march was to ensure Congress taxes billionaires.

Statements and Elections

Many politicians have made statements on their websites supporting the Occupy Wall Street movement. Democratic New York State Sen. Thomas K. Duane posted a message in solidarity with the protests Nov. 2 for a planned march five days later. Adirano Espaillat from the state's 31st Senate District posted an annoucement about an 11-mile march planned for Nov. 7. He helped lead the march between Yonkers and New York City.

One potential candidate is already getting backlash for her 2012 Senate run. Crossroads GPS released an attack ad against Elizabeth Warren who is seeking a Senate seat in Massachusetts. The commercial claims her support of the Occupy Wall Street Movement means she advocates drug use, violence and radical policies.

Help or Hinder Campaigns

Republicans and Democrats may start using the Occupy Wall Street movement for political leverage. Bloomberg reports public opinion favors doing something about the widening income gap. That income disparity is part of what fuels the Occupy movement.

Republicans have already started one attack ad using a Democrat's statement about Occupy Wall Street against her. How the group is received in Washington, D.C., Nov. 23 may also lead to more political bickering.

One thing is certain. Two major forces will collide in the nation's capital right before Thanksgiving. Protesters who are fed up with rich people who have destroyed the American dream and 12 members of Congress tasked with finding out how to fix the government's finances. If the two groups find common ground, political debates may heat up even more.

William Browning is a research librarian specializing in U.S. politics. Born in St. Louis, Browning is active in local politics and served as a campaign volunteer for President Barack Obama and Missouri Sen. Claire McCaskill.

View the original article here

Fast and Furious: Dems radio silent (Daily Caller)

North Carolina Democratic Rep. Larry Kissell won’t follow through on a promise he made to the American people  for Operation Fast and Furious accountability, his 2012 challenger told The Daily Caller.

One of Kissell’s 2012 Republican challengers, Richard Hudson, told TheDC that the Democrat’s continued failure to follow through on a June 3 letter to President Barack Obama demanding answers and accountability for Fast and Furious shows Kissell is more interested in playing politics and getting re-elected than he is in the truth.

“What happened in Fast and Furious is an absolute tragedy, but that tragedy was compounded by the failure of the Obama administration to tell the truth about it,” Hudson told TheDC. “It is apparent that Attorney General Holder did not tell the truth when testifying before Congress and that is unacceptable. I wish I could tell you why Larry Kissell doesn’t feel the same way.”

Kissell, he said, “owes it to the people he represents to come forward and call for Holder’s resignation.”

“I believe Kissell is afraid this would embarrass President Obama and hurt his re-election. The truth is the American people don’t care about politics.  Lives were lost, and those who played a role, had knowledge, or misled the Congress should be removed from office.”

Kissell was one of 31 Democrats who wrote to Obama on June 3 asking him to direct Holder and the Department of Justice to “promptly provide complete answers to all congressional inquiries” about Fast and Furious. Holder and the DOJ have not fulfilled that request.

Kissell and his 30 colleagues said the “tactics” used in Operation Fast and Furious “are extremely troubling.”

“Our concerns were heightened with news that one of the firearms sold may have been used in the murder of a Border Patrol agent,” the Democrats wrote. “These allegations call into question the judgment of the agents involved. It is equally troubling that the Department of Justice has delayed action and withheld information from congressional inquiries.”

As recently as this month, Holder and the DOJ have continued to refuse to provide witnesses and documents that House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. Darrell Issa has not only requested, but subpoenaed. If Holder continues to delay action and withhold information from Congress, the subpoena can ultimately be enforced by Contempt of Congress proceedings.

Since the Democrats’ letter, Republican Rep. Raul Labrador and 50 of his GOP colleagues have made clear that they believe Holder “is either lying or grossly incompetent. Either way, he is unfit to serve the American people as the highest law enforcement officer in the land.”

Though the 51 congressmen are demanding Holder’s immediate resignation, Kissell won’t talk. He has gone silent now that a high-ranking Obama administration official — and personal ally of the president — is implicated in the scandal.

Hudson said Kissell’s lack of action is unacceptable and his failure to lead on this issue has become “typical” behavior for the North Carolina Democat. “He talks a good game but refuses to lead,” Hudson said. “The people of the 8th District need real conservative leadership from a congressman who will take a principled stand. Larry Kissell has not led — I will.”

“Attorney General Holder has lost the confidence of the American people and should be replaced,” Hudson added. “Unfortunately, the people in the 8th District cannot count on Larry Kissell to stand up for what is right.”

The Daily Caller has given Kissell and his spokesman Christopher Schuler several days to respond to questions about this issue. On at least four occasions, an intern or staffer who answered the phone in Kissell’s Washington, D.C., office told TheDC that Schuler was in the office but unavailable to talk about Fast and Furious. TheDC left detailed messages and sent email requests asking for Kissell’s comment. He has not responded.

Follow Matthew on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Chris Matthews spanked by KABC radio's Larry Elder

Fast and Furious: Dems radio silent

Chuck Schumer ordered tea partiers out of Capitol [VIDEO]

Do candidates still need an Iowa ground game?

Occupy's greatest hits

View the original article here

Will Wisconsin Republican Gov. Walker Be Ousted in a Recall? (ContributorNetwork)

ANALYSIS | Wisconsin Democrats are attempting to oust Gov. Scott Walker as result of the messy debate over unions earlier this year. They are emboldened by recent recall elections and an Ohio referendum, but history shows it won't be so easy.

The Dairy State was treated to a fight over proposed new government powers to curtail union rights. We saw the spectacle of Democrat politicians fleeing the state to avoid a vote, Republicans going the extra mile to drag them back, and protesters disrupting the state capitol in a preview of "Occupy Wall Street." The GOP got its legislative victory, but Democrats struck back. Two Republican legislators (Dan Kapanke and Randy Hopper) were recalled in special elections. In other states, two more Republicans were booted in recall elections in November, while an anti-union measure was slammed by Ohio voters.

Democrats hope to bag their biggest prize: Scott Walker himself. The recall movement kicks off less than a week after the November election. Polls show several Wisconsin Democrats (Russ Feingold, Tom Barrett) would beat Walker in an election. But Democrats may well fall short.

Hopper and Kapanke may have gone down to defeat, as did Russell Pearce and Paul Scott, but not all recall elections are successful. Analysis of the National Conference of State Legislatures data reveals that such a strategy has only worked 17 times against state legislators. In 15 cases, it didn't. This includes several GOP state legislators in Wisconsin this year (and a few Democrats in the state, as Republicans retaliated unsuccessfully).

Recall supporters point out that other politicians have been ousted, but that list includes only two governors: Republican Lynn Frazier in North Dakota in 1921 and Gray Davis in California in 2003. Many other attempts to dump governors, mayors, and municipal politicians have fizzled.

On many occasions, petitioners have tried to oust Federal officials (mostly for political reasons rather than any real malfeasance) without success, as the Constitution has no such provision (though the Founding Fathers kicked around the idea).

Recalls bids have a spotty record at best. When enough petitions are gathered, the ousting rate is barely 50 percent, and that doesn't include failed court challenges or cases where organizers couldn't muster the minimum number of petitions. And while Walker may have higher disapproval ratings and less popularity than Feingold and Barrett, a slight majority doesn't support a recall at this time. So even though Democrats are on a hot streak, they have their work cut out for them in a recall effort against Walker.

View the original article here

Texas AG blasts court's redistricting maps (AP)

AUSTIN, Texas – Texas' attorney general sharply criticized a federal court Friday over its proposed maps for state House and Senate districts in the 2012 election, saying the judges overstepped their bounds.

The San Antonio-based federal court released the proposed redistricting maps late Thursday and gave those involved in the case until noon Friday to comment. Minority groups have filed a legal challenge to the Republican-drawn maps, saying they are discriminatory. The court's maps are intended to be an interim solution until the case is resolved after the 2012 elections.

Maps for the House and Senate released Thursday restore many of the minority districts — where Democrats hold the seats — to their previous shapes. Republican lawmakers have denied their maps were intended to minimize minority representation, and say they merely reflect the GOP majority in Texas.

In his filing, Attorney General Gregg Abbot said the court went too far in redrawing the Legislature's maps.

"A court's job is to apply the law, not to make policy," Abbott wrote in his objection to the proposed House map. "A federal court lacks the constitutional authority to interfere with the expressed will of the state Legislature unless it is compelled to remedy a specific identifiable violation of law."

Abbott argued that there is no violation of law. Included in his court filing were letters and emails from 18 Republican lawmakers and two Democrats objecting to portions of the court-drawn House map.

The objections by the Republican attorney general and lawmakers followed praise by many Democrats on Thursday night. But two Democrats, Representatives Senfronia Thompson and Harold Dutton, objected to the court's version of their House Districts 141 and 142 in Harris County

"The traditional communities of interest, which have existed since 1972, are destroyed under the court's plan," Dutton said. Thompson said her district was fundamentally changed by removing a key neighborhood from it.

Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, also denounced the court's state Senate maps. As the leader of the Senate, he supervised the creation of the district map for that chamber.

"The Senate's map was not hastily crafted, but was the product of careful balancing and intense negotiation by the senators," Dewhurst said in a letter Friday. "The court's proposed interim map completely disregards the careful work of the members of the Senate."

Since 1965, Texas has been subject to the Voting Rights Act, which requires states with a history of racial discrimination to first gain approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court before instituting new political districts. A federal court in Washington rejected Abbott's request to give approval to the legislative and congressional maps drawn by the Legislature, and the Department of Justice has called the method for drafting the maps seriously flawed.

The courts have played a role in drafting every legislative or congressional redistricting map in Texas since 1970.

View the original article here

Both Dems, GOP pleased: Supreme Court taking up Obama health-care law (The Christian Science Monitor)

There isn’t much these days that can spread unanimity across party lines in Washington. But that’s what happened following the US Supreme Court’s announcement on Monday that it will examine the constitutionality of President Obama’s health-care reform law.

The news was greeted across the ideological spectrum as a positive development – but for different reasons.

“We are pleased the court has agreed to hear this case,” Dan Pfeiffer, White House communications director, said in a statement. “We know the Affordable Care Act [ACA] is constitutional and are confident the Supreme Court will agree.”

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi echoed the sentiments. “Today’s announcement places the Affordable Care Act before the highest court in our country,” she said. “We are confident that the Supreme Court will find the law constitutional.”

Others are equally confident that the law is unconstitutional, and they’re looking forward to the Supreme Court saying so.

“Throughout the debate, Senate Republicans have argued that this misguided law represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional expansion of the federal government into the daily lives of every American. Most Americans agree,” said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell.

“In both public surveys and at the ballot box, Americans have rejected the law’s mandate that they must buy government-approved health insurance, and I hope the Supreme Court will do the same,â€

“The American people did not support this law when it was rushed through Congress and they do not support it now that they’ve seen what’s in it,” House Speaker John Boehner said in a statement. “This government takeover of health care is threatening jobs, increasing costs, and jeopardizing coverage for millions of Americans, and I hope the Supreme Court overturns it.”

Rep. Pete Stark (D) of California had a different take. “I’m looking forward to a Supreme Court ruling that will force Republicans to join Democrats in governing instead of continuing their political grandstanding,” he said.

In announcing that they will take up the issue, the justices set aside an extraordinary 5-1/2 hours for oral argument. They have agreed to examine the ACA’s controversial independent mandate, the requirement that all Americans must purchase a government-approved level of health insurance or pay a penalty.

The court has also agreed to hear an appeal by Florida and 24 other states that the ACA’s expansion of Medicaid is overly coercive of state government, forcing the states to either adopt the federal reforms or lose federal health-care funding.

Beyond the fate of the ACA, the high court’s decision could establish new boundaries for federal power under the Constitution’s commerce clause.

“The Supreme Court has set the stage for the most significant case since Roe v. Wade,” said Ilya Shapiro of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank in Washington. “Indeed, this litigation implicates the future of the Republic as Roe never did.”

Randy Barnett, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, was among the first legal scholars to raise serious questions about the constitutionality of the health-care reform law. When most other legal analysts scoffed, Professor Barnett argued that the ACA’s individual mandate represented a sizable expansion of federal power.

“Upholding the individual mandate would end the notion that Congress is one of limited and enumerated powers, and fundamentally transform the relationship of Americans to their doctors and their government,” he said in a statement Monday. “It is high time for the high court to strike down this unconstitutional, unworkable, and unpopular law.”

Elizabeth Wydra, general counsel of the liberal Constitutional Accountability Center in Washington, noted that two highly regarded conservative jurists have voted in lower court cases to uphold the ACA. Conservative members of the high court may follow the same path, she said.

“Observers should note the very real possibility that the tea party’s basic constitutional vision could be rejected by the Supreme Court – particularly its most conservative members,” she said. A high court endorsement of the ACA, Ms. Wydra added, “could deal a devastating blow to tea partiers’ ability to have their constitutional theories taken seriously by the American public in the future.”

Timothy Sandefur, a lawyer at the conservative Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento, Calif., says he’s hopeful the Supreme Court case sparks even more discussion, not less.

“The Supreme Court’s announcement marks an historic opportunity for a nationwide debate over the Constitution and its continued significance in our lives – the kind of debate this nation has not had since the 1930s,” Mr. Sandefur said. “The founding fathers made it clear that they were designing a federal government of limited powers. But since the 1930s, Congress has pushed its authority further and further, and courts have refused to enforce the constitutional limits.”

Sandefur added: “Today’s announcement means the justices will be faced with the question of whether the federal government is still bound by constitutional limits, or whether we will persist in our decades-long habit of ignoring the letter and spirit of our nation’s supreme law.”

Neera Tanden, president of the liberal Center for American Progress in Washington, offered a different perspective. “I am confident the law will be upheld in its entirety,” she said.

Ms. Tanden called the lawsuits challenging the ACA “nothing more than an attempt to rewrite the Constitution to thwart national solutions to national problems.”

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) said he is confident the high court will invalidate the ACA. “Each day that these cases remain unresolved means that states must spend more time and money to prepare for the expensive and burdensome requirements of the health care law, while uncertainty looms over its constitutionality,” he said.

“Today’s news that the Supreme Court will hear arguments,” the governor said, “is reassuring news that we will soon reach finality on this critically important issue.”

The National Federation of Independent Business is a party to one of the appeals challenging the ACA’s constitutionality. The high court’s decision to hear its case is welcome news, said NFIB president Dan Danner.

“Only 18 months after its passage, the new health care law has been brought to the steps of the Supreme Court,” Mr. Danner said. “The health care law has not lived up to its promise of reducing costs, allowing citizens to keep their coverage or improving a cumbersome system that has long been a burden to small-business owners and employees.”

He added, “The small-business community can now have hope; their voices are going to be heard in the nation’s highest court.”

RECOMMENDED: How much do you know about the US Constitution? A quiz.

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here

How Did Ohio, Mississippi Ballot Initiatives Fare in 2011 Election? (ContributorNetwork)

The election that took place on Nov. 8, 2011 featured a number of statewide initiatives that have national import. Two of the results would seem to favor Democrats while two other results favored Republicans.

What the meaning these initiatives have for the 2012 election, if any, will be the subject of considerable debate for the next few weeks. Both sides of the political aisle find reason for comfort and for concern.

Ohio Issue 2: Collective Bargaining Rights for Public Sector Unions

Ohio voters rejected the Issue 2 ballot initiative, a result that had the effect of repealing a law passed in the Ohio legislature that restricted the rights of public sector employees to collectively bargain. Labor unions poured in tens of millions of dollars and many thousands of man hours to defeat the initiative. They succeeded by about a two to one margin. Conservatives warn, however, that this means that either taxes will have to be raised or services cut and employees laid off.

Ohio Issue 3: The Individual Insurance Mandate Under Obamacare

Proving that health care reform, also known as Obamacare, remains universally unpopular, voters in Ohio voted to pass Issue 3, which would exempt Ohioans from having to comply with the individual insurance mandate. Unfortunately if Obamacare remains law and if the Supreme Court upholds the individual mandate, the results of the measure are largely moot. It would, however, prevent Ohio from enacting its own version of Romneycare, passed in Massachusetts, which also has an individual mandate.

Mississippi Initiative 26: The Personhood Amendment

This ballot initiative would have defined a human being a legal person from the moment of conception, effectively outlawing all abortions, even in the case of rape or incest. This initiative proved to be too much, even for conservative, Bible belt Mississippi. The fear of unintended consequences, including the possibility that a woman suffering a miscarriage might be charged with involuntary manslaughter, influenced Mississippi voters to turn down the amendment.

Mississippi Initiative 31: Eminent Domain Reform

Even since the Supreme Court's Kelo decision, which permitted state and local governments to seize private property and to give that property to another private entity under eminent domain, states and localities have been scrambling to pass laws to tighten restrictions on eminent domain. Mississippi is the latest state to do so, passing a ballot initiative that largely prohibits state and local governments from taking private property and giving it to another private entity, even if it can claim that a public purpose, usually higher tax revenues, is being facilitated. It is another victory for property rights.

View the original article here

RNC surpasses DNC in October fundraising (AP)

WASHINGTON – The Republican National Committee raised $8.5 million in October as it gears up for a challenge to President Barack Obama next year.

The RNC raised slightly more during the month than the Democratic National Committee, which collected $7.9 million. The RNC ended October with $13.5 million in the bank, while the DNC's cash on hand fell to $11.1 million.

RNC officials said the party's debt was $13.9 million. That's down from $24 million when RNC Chairman Reince Priebus (ryns PREE'-bus) took over the committee. The DNC had debts of $9 million.

The DNC fundraising included $2 million for the Obama Victory Fund, a joint fundraising account by the DNC and Obama's e-election campaign.

View the original article here

Senate Passes Its First Portion of Obama's Jobs Plan (The Atlantic Wire)

A bill giving businesses tax credits for hiring military veterans became the first part of President Barack Obama's sweeping American Jobs Act to pass the Senate on Thursday. It's also the first bit of jobs-bill cooperation for the Senate in a while, Politico notes. After Republicans blocked the American Jobs Act as a whole back in October, Democrats tried to introduce it piece by piece, but the two bills they've brought to the Senate floor have both failed. Earlier on Thursday, Democrats scored some retribution on the Republicans by defeating its alternative jobs plan. But later, in an especially rare bit of bipartisanship, the vote to approve the veteran-hiring bill (on the eve of Veterans' Day, no less) was 94-to-1, with only Sen. Jim DeMint, a South Carolina Republican, saying the government shouldn't "privilege one American over another when it comes to work." DeMint's counterpart, Lindsey Graham, had the quote of the day, however, with this pep talk: "There is more potential [for bipartisanship] than people realize. You just got to want it."

View the original article here