In Senate, Democrats halt pipeline measure - Philadelphia Daily News

WASHINGTON - With gas prices a high-octane campaign issue, the Democratic-led Senate beat back a Republican effort to advance the Keystone XL oil pipeline project.

Thursday's vote to attach the project to a must-pass transportation bill failed, 56-42, with 11 Democrats joining Republicans to support the measure. Sixty votes were needed for passage.

While both Pennsylvania senators, Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Pat Toomey, voted in favor of the measure, the other Philadelphia-area senators voted against it.

President Obama had called senators to urge a no vote.

"We hope that the Congress will ... not waste its time with ineffectual, sham legislation," White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

But the effort - along with a vote on a measure to expand offshore drilling that was also rejected - was designed to highlight differences between the two parties and provide campaign fodder in this year's battle to control the White House and the Senate.

"The president simply can't claim to have a comprehensive approach to energy, because he doesn't," said Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky. "And any time he says he does, the American people should remember one word: Keystone." No Republicans opposed the Keystone measure, but two did not vote.

Republicans are eager to showcase Obama's decision to withhold approval of the Canada-to-Gulf Coast pipeline as proof that the administration is not doing enough to generate jobs and increase energy supplies. But opponents of the project say supporters exaggerate the number of jobs it would create and dispute that it would bring down gas prices.

The pipeline issue has divided core Democratic constituencies. Some labor unions back the project as a way to create jobs; environmentalists warn the pipeline would expand the nation's carbon footprint and create more pollution.

An alternative Democratic measure that would, among other things, have prohibited the export of oil transported in the pipeline and, according to its sponsor, Sen. Ron Wyden (D., Ore.), put "teeth behind all of the debate that this energy is going to be for the America consumer," also failed.

Sen. John Hoeven (R., N.D.), who led the floor debate on the Keystone amendment, argued that the Democratic alternative measure would have added "additional impediments" to the project.

The Keystone votes come as the Senate is on track to pass a $109 billion, two-year transportation bill next week. The legislation sets road, highway, and transit priorities.

But the transportation bill's fate is uncertain because House Speaker John A. Boehner (R., Ohio) has been unable to corral a majority for passage in the Republican-controlled House. Republicans disagree on how big the bill should be and what it should include.

One measure passed Thursday would steer 80 percent of the penalties paid by BP for the 2010 Gulf of Mexico spill to restoring coastal ecosystems and rebuilding local economies in the gulf.

View the original article here

Will the Democrats say 'I do' support marriage equality in 2012? - DAILY KOS

On Feb. 13, Freedom to Marry launched their "Democrats: Say I Do" campaign, aimed at lobbying the Democratic Party's drafting committee to formally adopt a position of supporting marriage equality into the party platform. The new platform will be ratified at the Democratic National Convention this summer. The current platform language reads (p. 52):

We support the full inclusion of all families, including same-sex couples, in the life of our nation, and support equal responsibility, benefits, and protections. We will enact a comprehensive bipartisan employment non-discrimination act. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act and all attempts to use this issue to divide us.

The proposed new language would read:

The Democratic Party supports the full inclusion of all families in the life of our nation, with equal respect, responsibility, and protection under the law, including the freedom to marry. Government has no business putting barriers in the path of people seeking to care for their family members, particularly in challenging economic times. We support the Respect for Marriage Act and the overturning of the federal so-called “Defense of Marriage Act,” and oppose discriminatory constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny the freedom to marry to loving and committed same-sex couples.

Is the time ripe for the Democratic party to finally come out of the closet and say "I do" support marriage equality and not just wink and a nod at it?

Reid Wilson writing in the National Journal this week called marriage equality support "The New Democratic Litmus Test." Wilson argues the 2016 Democratic presidential aspirants will inevitably include marriage equality supporters, and Democratic marriage equality opponents may well find themselves at a significant fundraising disadvantage.

In July 2011, President Obama's pollster Joel Benenson and George W. Bush's pollster Dr. Jan van Lohuizen were hired by Freedom to Marry to crunch the numbers. Here's what their analysis of six national polls from Gallup, Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), CNN/Opinion Research Corporation, ABC News/Washington Post and Pew Research Center (Pew) found:

The trendlines are indisputable, and a general consensus seems to be forming that marriage equality is inevitable, Vice-President Joe Biden even said so himself.

Among Beneson and van Lohuizen's conclusions was the declaration that "support strongly correlates with age. As Americans currently under the age of 40 make up a greater percentage of the electorate, their views will come to dominate."

And look who signed up right away to endorse Freedom to Marry's initiative: the Executive Director of Young Democrats of America. YDA has 150,000+ members from chapters in 46 states and U.S. territories and over 1,500 local chapters. Emily Tisch Sussman writing on the group's website said:

“As the Executive Director of Young Democrats of America, I represent young people, and the way we connect young people back to Democratic politics is by speaking out for what is right and taking action. Polling shows that 70 percent of voters 18-34 support the freedom to marry, and for many of our members, it’s a cause that goes to the core of why they consider themselves Democrats. It is time to realize that marriage is no longer an effective wedge issue; it is a cause that we as Democrats should be leading on.”

Leadership is the key issue here.

The changing trendlines certainly are signaling to many Democratic leaders the water's fine, hop right in. The strong hand of leadership emanting from Democratic Govs. Cuomo, Gregoire and O'Malley in New York, Washington and Maryland were certainly key to marriage equality victories in the last year.

There is certainly a school of thought that Democrats should not engage "social issues" and that what voters really care about is the jobs and economy.

While the second part is almost certainly true, total disengagement from this "social issue" is not a luxury the LGBT community has the privilege to enjoy in the 2012 election cycle. Whether LGBT Americans like it or not, their civil rights will be going to popular ballot referendums, definitely in Minnesota, Maine and all but certainly in Washington and Maryland as well. North Carolina too will be voting on May 8 on a constitutional amendment to ban virtually all unions but opposite-sex marriage.

And for some inexplicable reason Republicans seem anxious to make 2012 the year of a resurgent culture war. Inexplicable as polling shows they are out if the mainstream on all touchstone issues. Abortion, birth control and even marriage equality offers increasingly no advantage to winning the hearts and minds of the middle.

Support by party affliation, average five national polls*Nationally marriage equality supporters are indisputably in the majority.

Viewing support through party affiliations, and non-affiliated voters, the divide is even more revealing.

Increasingly the GOP's rhetoric preaches only to their choir. Supporting marriage equality offers little risk to a Democrat to turn off the base or independents. It's becoming clear that the most adamant opposition is fast boiling down to a hardcore group of 30% mostly religious right conservative Republicans. And it isn't at all clear that a voter that doesn't support marriage equality personally considers a candidate's support a deal-breaker in an otherwise acceptable platform of issues.

Believe it or not, even the Republican party seems to be waking up to this. Earlier this year, National Journal took the temperature of political "insiders"—political operatives, strategists, campaign consultants and lobbyists—in both parties. They found an amazing 20 percent drop in GOP's appetite for opposing marriage equality in just under two years. All the movement on the GOP side was toward a desire to "avoid" the issue:

Republicans insiders on marriage equalityMy party should avoid the issueA smart strategist will attack where he sees his opponent retreating and 84 percent of Democratic opinion leaders recommend their party support marriage equality. Quotes from insiders included this from a Democrat: "It's a huge demographic opportunity for Democrats because almost every voter under 30 supports it."  This one came from a GOP operative: "Only idiots fight demography." In New Jersey, Democrats appear to have used Republican Chris Christie's idiocy against him.

But often Democrats are more comfortable discussing the politics of contrast than playing them. To do that you have to get in front of the issue, and lead the conversation in a new direction rather than just respond to what the other side is saying.

As marriage equality support becomes the majority position it becomes less and less understandable to the LGBT community that leaders should treat the issue as radioactive or an electoral albatross.

There is of course, widespread anxiety about these various ballot fights coming to the 2012 calendar, and also perhaps anxiety at the prospect of a 2008 redux.

Think back to November 4, 2008. While Democrats had every reason to cheer, for the LGBT constituency, the evening was more bittersweet. The landslide win of Barack Obama, and downticket sweeps of Democrats did not stop Proposition 8 in California, nor did it stop similar anti-gay ballot initatives in Florida, Arizona, and Arkansas.

In 2009, during the ballot fight for marriage equality in Maine, there was some criticism that Organizing for America was perhaps, less engaged than many LGBT Democrats might have hoped. That ballot initiative failed narrowly.

Signs are encouraging that the larger Democratic establishment will be more engaged in assisting the LGBT community with these battles in 2012 than in the past.

In Maryland and Washington, the party has good incentive to unite. Like marriage equality or not, the Republicans are coming to take away the Democratic Governor's legacy. Govs. Gregoire and O'Malley's triumphs will be hollow, even viewed as a political misstep, should they be erased by voters. In both states, a united front of the Democratic base can assure the governors' fight for the freedom to marry was not made in vain and the Democratic party's legislative agenda vindicated. In Minnesota, the Democratic party, under the leadership of Gov. Mark Dayton is showing a fierce appetite to adopt the fight as their own.

Unsurprisingly, further south of the Mason-Dixon line, the news is less encouraging in North Carolina. Moving the date of the ballot initiative from the general to be concurrent with Republican primary was anything but helpful, at least for the LGBT community. And Sen. Kay Hagan's comment she was "wary" of the amendment was described by North Carolinian Pam Spaulding as more "tepid" and "pitiful" than fierce, but still better than Democratic Gov. Beverly Perdue's statement.

The platform adoption is but one strategy for solidifying support within the Democratic base for turning these ballot initiatives into LGBT victories.

Adam Bink of Courage Campaign called adopting marriage equality support into the platform "constructive and important." But Courage Campaign's strategy is perhaps more pragmatic than symbolic and can be summed up in four words: "Show us the money!"

Courage Campaign and Grindr 4 Equality are focused on ensuring the DNC chip in to fund the campaign against these discriminatory amendments in Minnesota and North Carolina and ensure equal rights in other states because ultimately, money is what is needed to get our message out to voters in these critical campaigns."

Courage Campaign's petition to the DNC reads:

LGBT voters and their allies have put Democrats in office for years. Now it's time for the Democratic National Committee (DNC) to have our back and help secure equal rights. As many as 5 states (Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina and Washington) will face ballot referenda on marriage equality this year, where voters will vote on the rights of same-sex couples to marry.

In 2008, the DNC chipped in $25,000 to help fight Prop 8 and then-candidate Obama called for a "no" vote. DNC Chairwoman and Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz told reporters she would "certainly consider" funding the fight for equal rights. Let's show the DNC how important it is for them to help again.

Submitted to Madame Chairwoman as she considers the appropriating of DNC resources for the 2012 cycle: the voters these equality-minded organizers will be working furiously to drive into voting booths will almost certainly be disproportionately young, progressive Democrats. Please, consider how that might end well for everyone on election night.

The ask seems particularly effective coming from Courage Campaign as they have distinguished themselves as full-spectrum progressive organizer engaging on issues as disparate as fair taxation, racism, health care reform and countless others.

Michael Cole-Schwartz speaking for Human Rights Campaign said:

We are supportive of Freedom to Marry's and Courage Campaign's efforts. Having party support for marriage and a variety of other LGBT issues is important which is why we've testified previously, including in 2008, before the DNC Platform Committee. As we look toward these critical elections with marriage to be on the ballot in a number of states, HRC will be playing a substantial role in these fights.

The LGBT community has a good friend in DNC chairwoman Wasserman Schultz, a supporter of marriage equality. She has not yet commented on the platform language, but has a long history of standing with the LGBT community, including serving as vice-chair of the House LGBT equality caucus. House Minority leader Nancy Pelosi has already voiced support for the proposed change in platform language. She also once said to marriage equality opponents, "The inconceivable to you is the inevitable to us." Secret Service watches President Obama address
Human Rights Campaign, Oct. 2009 (White House)But of course the elephant donkey in the living room is the awkward optics of a party adopting a position that the party leader does not share. (Although exactly such a situation already transpired late last year in Australia on precisely this issue.) This almost certainly presents the biggest hurdle to the successful adoption.

But even the party leader himself seems to be acknowledging the inevitable telling Joe Sudbay and gathered bloggers in October 2010:

THE PRESIDENT: The one thing I will say today is I think it’s pretty clear where the trendlines are going.

Q: The arc of history.

THE PRESIDENT: The arc of history.

The biggest point of debate seems to be when he will—or should—get on the correct side of the arc of history?

Not everyone has lost faith that the president's position will complete its evolution before November 6, 2012. In December, former Clinton White House advisor Richard Socarides wrote of Prop 8 and DOMA constitutional challenges in the New Yorker:

The potential for those decisions, together with a rapid change in public opinion in favor of marriage equality, have clearly become factors in President Obama’s thinking. As a result, I believe that he will announce his support for same-sex marriage before the 2012 election.

Might the president announce his personal endorsement concurrent with that of his party?

It certainly would put a bold exclamation point on his likely place in history as the first American president to declare the freedom to marry as a fundamental human right for every loving couple.

View the original article here

Democrats taunt Romney as rich, forget flip-flop charge (Daily Caller)

The Democrats’ orchestrated and tweeted criticism of former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney turned personal during Thursday’s South Carolina debate, and focused on his wealth and demeanor, not on his policy positions or policy changes.

Romney “is worth a quarter of a billion dollars,” and “is quadrupling the size of his Pacific Coast Mansion,” said tweets from Brad Woodhouse, the communications director at the Democratic National Committee, who invited his followers to share their ridicule of Romney via a tweet hashtag “#livedintherealstreetsofAmerica.”

Romney’s wealth was also targeted by Ben LaBolt, the press secretary for Obama’s 2012 campaign. “Speaking of vacations, when will Romney’s investments stop vacationing offshore in the Caymans?” he said halfway through the two-hour debate.

Paul Begala, a consultant who is working with the Obama campaign, tweeted out his taunts, saying one hour into the debate that “Mitt hates, hates, HATES being questioned about his taxes.Looks like he wants to fire the peons who dare question him about taxes.”

A little earlier, Begala announced that “Romney should save his threats of fist fights for his croquet & polo matches.”

The personal taunts, however, followed the Democrats’ increased efforts to portray Romney as an out-of-touch elitist

For example, Romney “made millions laying people off, bankrupting companies and shorting pensions and healthcare,” Woodhouse announced at 9:10 p.m.

The Democratic activists have largely dropped their previous effort to depict Romney as a flip-flopper, although Woodhouse’s DNC sent out several emails displaying a graphic that said, “Mitt Romney; Say Anything to get elected.’

Democratic spokesmen, however, did aim some taunts at other GOP candidates, usually lamenting their failure to disagree more with Romney.

“Holy smokes. Santorum at his best. Skewers Newt for erratic, inconstant leadership as Speaker.This is getting personal. Love it,” Begala tweeted midway through the debate.

Romney “looks like he wants to punch Rick Santorum in the mouth,” Woodhouse declared 36 minutes into the debate.

The nastiest tweet, however, came during the opening minutes of the debate from Begala, and was aimed at his old rival, former House Speaker Next Gingrich. “Newt walks out. Unflattering profile shot. But then again, the camera adds 200 pounds,” said Begala.

Back in 1994, Gingrich helped end the Democrats’ 40 years of majority control in the House of Representatives. The remarkable turnover forced Begala’s client, President Bill Clinton, to remain on political defense for the rest of his presidency.

Follow Neil on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

What comes after hope and change? The top 10 losing Obama slogans for 2012

Santorum: 'the Internet is not a free zone where anybody can do anything they want'

Democrats taunt Romney as rich, forget flip-flop charge

CNN's John King ignores Ron Paul...met with boos

Early co-sponsor of SOPA recants, declares: 'It’s time to scrap the bill'

View the original article here

Seeking more luxury suites, DNC might move Obama convention speech to stadium (Daily Caller)

With Democrats struggling to reach their $36.6 million fundraising target for the Democratic National Convention  in August, plans have emerged to move the event’s final day to the 74,000-seat stadium where the NFL’s Carolina Panthers play, reports the Charlotte Observer. That move will allow fundraisers to sell access to more luxury suites.

Democratic sources told Bloomberg News that Obama advisers are conscious of the political downside that could be associated with the move, but not because of the spectacle of a big-dollar cash grab. Party officials are instead concerned because Bank of America — one of the president’s most recent corporate whipping-boys — is the arenas named sponsor.

In October, Obama criticized the bank for its plan, which was later scrapped, to impose a $5 monthly fee on customers who use debit cards.

“People have been using financial regulation as an excuse to charge consumers more,” Obama complained on Oct. 6.

Charlotte businessman Cameron Harris, who is among the top fundraisers on the convention’s host committee, told the Observer that making Bank of America Stadium the site of Obama’s acceptance speech “was a possibility … from the very beginning.”

The committee is hamstrung by new fundraising restrictions, reportedly imposed by Obama himself, which prohibit them from accepting money from corporations and lobbyists.

But they still plan to raise up to $15 million in “in-kind” contributions from companies, and cash from wealthy individuals. The committee is also accepting unlimited funds from nonprofit organizations, including charitable foundations associated with the president’s corporate supporters.

Another member of the host committee, who spoke to the Observer on condition of anonymity, insisted that the Democrats will manage to meet their fundraising goals.

“Are they working hard and losing sleep over it? Yes,” the source said. “But they didn’t seem at all desperate. … I don’t have inside information, but I think they’re over halfway there, though.”

David is The Daily Caller’s executive editor. Follow him on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Seeking more luxury suites, DNC might move Obama convention speech to stadium

Fashion world lines up behind Obama

Gore warns 'civilization is at risk' if global warming not a campaign issue [VIDEO]

David Cross hates 'Alvin and the Chipmunks: Chipwrecked'

Happy Anniversary, us!

View the original article here

Indiana GOP zeroes in on ‘right to work’ law, despite Dems going AWOL (Daily Caller)

When Democratic lawmakers in Wisconsin fled their state in February 2011 to hamstring Republicans working to limit the collective-bargaining rights of public-sector unions, their colleagues in Indiana were clearly paying attention. Beginning Wednesday, Hoosier State Democrats have been skipping out of work to prevent Republicans from passing a “right to work” law.

The legislative proposal, likely to pass the Republican-dominated state legislature — if everyone were present — aims to ban negotiations between companies and unions whose workers are forced to pay dues in order to keep their jobs.

But the Christian Science Monitor reports that although Democrats are AWOL, and risk $1,000 fines every day they are absent, Republicans are taking steps toward their goal. On Friday a House committee heard more than five hours of testimony on the bill.

Democrats, who rely on labor unions for political support, want to avoid a Republican victory. But they may not be able to hold their opponents off much longer.

“Unions are big contributors to the Democrats,” Indiana University political science professor Brian Vargus said, “and they feel with the decline of unionization, it would solidify Republicans. It simply comes down to that.”

Still, he told the paper, it’s a matter of when, not if.

Indiana’s Republican legislators already used their majority last year to pass a law similar to the one that caused the fracas in Wisconsin. And as steel mills and automotive plants decline in Indiana, unions have seen their memberships decline to 10.9 percent of the private sector workforce, a full percentage point below the national average

Democrats say they will not return for a vote until Republicans agree to hold field hearings throughout Indiana to justify the bill’s passage. Republicans say they will probably start enforcing the $1,000 per day penalty next week.

A Democratic-affiliated political action committee called ActBlue has already launched a fundraising effort enabling liberal voters to help offset those fines for Democratic lawmakers who continue to avoid coming to work.

David is The Daily Caller’s executive editor. Follow him on Twitter.

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Gingrich goes after Romney

White House mum about guns on Giffords anniversary

Google bomb haunts Senate candidate, and it isn't 'Santorum'

Indiana GOP zeroes in on 'right to work' law, despite Dems going AWOL

TheDC Top Ten: Keith Olbermann, sir, hates his bald critics [SLIDESHOW]

View the original article here

DNC e-stalks Romney, ignores others (Daily Caller)

The Democratic Party’s attack machine is compulsively obsessed with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

Since Jan 1, the Democratic National Committee and its subsidiaries has fire-hosed 34 anti-Romney emails into the The Daily Caller’s mailboxes.

His fellow GOP candidates can’t get hate, nor even love, from the DNC’s messaging architects.

The anti-Romney pitch is being broadcast via many channels by President Barrack Obama’s re-election team, which shows every indication that it most fears Romney, partly because he does well as among swing-voting, upper-income people. “Romney is the one they don’t want,” MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell told BreitbartTV during a New Hampshire interview. “They know they can beat anybody else. Romney, they think they can beat, but it’s a harder campaign.”

The most notable change within the DNC’s gusher is the gradual decline of the “flip-flop” charge, and the emergence of a “Mitt Romney will say anything to get elected” theme. That new pitch comes packaged with a pen-and-ink drawing from the 1989 John Cusack teen-throb movie “Say Anything.”

The new theme is intended to help Democrats combine their discordant claims that Romney is a populist flip-flopper and also an out-of-touch elitist.

The new theme has been included in six DNC messages since Jan 7. Its only prior appearance was back in October.

However, the DNC’s message mavens have yet to reconcile their simultaneous claims that Romney is both a say-anything compromiser and an extremist whose statements will alienate broad segments of the voting public.

The other GOP candidates barely get a insult in the DNC’s diatribes.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry has been cited in just five emails since Jan 1, each of which was principally focused on Romney. On Jan. 3, for example, Perry was mentioned in an email who subject was “Wasserman Schultz says Romney carries `baggage’ out of Iowa.”

Former Senator Rick Santorum also received mentions in five DNC messages, but they too were focused on Romney.

House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a seminal Democratic Party hate-figure, was similarly mentioned in eight DNC messages, all including Romney’s name in the subject line.

Huntsman was cited in just one message, but only because he too was criticizing Romney. The DNC email cited Huntsman’s criticism — “We became the top job creator in the country. Mitt in Massachusetts was number 47” — but didn’t venture anything negative about the second Mormon in the race for the GOP presidential nomination.

The flood of emails mentioned Rep. Ron Paul only once, with the DNC passing on a Florida newspaper’s claim that Paul, Santorum and Romney were all “very extreme” on immigration issues. The DNC did not explain which candidates were merely “extreme” on urging implementation of existing immigration law.

Follow Neil on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Under Obama, guest-worker visa policy creates left-right conflict

DNC e-stalks Romney, ignores others

Md. Dems violate party bylaws, endorse white incumbent Cardin over black Senate rival

Geniuses declare: No invention beats the wheel

FoodPolitik: The right to arm bears?

View the original article here

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: You guys know Romney’s a flip-flopper, right? (Daily Caller)

Speaking to reporters after Saturday’s Republican primary debate in New Hampshire, Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz said Republican voters would be wise to question front-runner Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials.

“This is a candidate without any conviction at all, willing to say or do anything to get elected,” she said. “Tonight he talked about how supportive he was of overturning Roe v. Wade, yet just in 2002 he was a candidate for governor who was totally supportive of Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose. I mean, that’s a pretty significant issue to have such a major flip-flop.”

“I think Republican voters need to ask themselves whether Massachusetts elected a conservative Republican candidate for governor,” she continued.

Romney’s perceived insincerity has been a major focus of criticism since he first ran for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008. During his two campaigns for statewide office in traditionally Democratic Massachusetts — for the U.S. Senate in 1994 and for governor in 2002 — Romney ran as a moderate, pro-choice Republican.

After leaving office in 2007 and setting his sights on the presidency, however, Romney moved to the right and left many conservatives wondering if his views on issues like abortion were heartfelt or simply a matter of convenience.

Wasserman Schultz’s comments indicate that Democrats will pick up the “flip-flopper” meme if Romney should win his party’s nomination. But by attempting to exacerbate the divide between Romney and the Republican base, they also re-enforce the notion that President Obama’s allies see his as the strongest and most threatening candidate in the GOP field.

“At this point he’s certainly done everything he can to get as far to the right as possible,” she said. “He’s embraced extremism, he’s embraced the tea party, so he certainly needs to be held accountable for the things he’s saying now.”

“He’ll be held accountable for the Mitt Romney who ran in 1992 and the Mitt Romney who ran in 1994,” she continued. “You never know which Mitt Romney you’ll be running against, but we’ll be running against them all.”

Follow Will on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Debbie Wasserman Schultz: You guys know Romney's a flip-flopper, right?

Sen. Rand Paul mum on father’s newsletters, Gaza 'concentration camp' remark

Minutes after NH debate, 'SNL' opening mocks Santorum

Gov. Nikki Haley: Romney's Mormon faith won't hurt him in SC

Tragedy of the conservatives: Why Romney's wimpy foes are acting rationally

View the original article here

Addressing Iowa Democrats, Obama frames 2012 race as one ‘for our children’ (Daily Caller)

President Barack Obama offered a truncated version of his campaign-dinner speech to Iowa campaign workers Tuesday night, complete with personal anecdotes, claims of political success, appeals for more donations and a glimpse of how he hopes to portray the stakes of the 2012 election.

“Part of what 2012 is about is both reminding the American people of how far we’ve traveled and the concrete effects that some of our work … but part of it is also framing this larger debate about what kind of country are we going to leave for our children and our grandchildren,” he said.

As part of that reframing effort, Obama caricatured the GOP’s free-market policies as “a different theory that says, we’re going to cut taxes for the wealthiest among us, and roll back regulations on things like clean air and health care reform and Wall Street reform, and that somehow, automatically, that assures that everybody is able to succeed.”

“I don’t believe that” theory, said Obama, who has described himself as a progressive.

Progressives, generally speaking, believe that university-trained managers should manage people’s economic and social lives. Conservatives, including social conservatives and libertarians, object to government-imposed management of the economy and society.

Obama also framed his progressive goals in the populist language chosen for his Dec. 6 speech in Osawatomie, Kansas, saying he was fighting for “an America where [government ensured] everybody had a fair shot, everybody did their fair share; that responsibility was rewarded and that the game wasn’t fixed.”

Obama is also likely to use the same populist terms in his planned Jan. 4 speech at Shaker Heights High School near in Cleveland, Ohio.

The progressive ambition of this populist pitch was underlined when he urged more government management of competition in the financial sector, despite the central role that federal regulators played in the gradual creation and 2007 implosion of the disastrous real-estate bubble.

“If you want to compete in a free market,” he told the campaign workers, “then you should compete on the basis of price and service and quality, not on the basis of somebody not being able to understand what they’re buying,” he declared.

But efforts by government regulators to manage tens of millions of diverse consumers’ understanding of products and services would choke competition, curb economic growth, constrict the supply of new products, and also subordinate business owners to government managers, say free-market advocates.

This pitch is a harder-edged reprise of his 2008 victory speech at the Iowa caucus, where he beat then-Sen. Hillary Clinton.

“Sometimes, just sometimes, there are nights like this; a night that, years from now, when we’ve made the changes we believe in, when more families can afford to see a doctor, when our children — when Malia and Sasha and your children inherit a planet that’s a little cleaner and safer, when the world sees America differently, and America sees itself as a nation less divided and more united, you’ll be able to look back with pride and say that this was the moment when it all began,” he declared in January 2008.

At several points in Obama’s speech this year, which was carried on a closed network to hundreds of Democratic caucus sites, he also portrayed himself as the underdog facing a predicted a difficult election and then urged his campaign workers to do more.

“There are a lot of forces that want to push back against us … we’re battling millions of dollars of negative advertising and lobbyists and special interests who don’t want to see the change that you worked so hard to fully take root … Change is never easy,” he said.

“So the only way we’re going to be able to do that is if all of you maintain the same determination, the same energy, the same drive, the same hopefulness, the same optimism,” he said. “When people at grassroots level are getting involved and they’re getting engaged, and they’re feeling empowered and they’re joining hands with each other — that’s a powerful force.”

When touting his accomplishments, he cited his unpopular Obamacare health-sector takeover, this increased spending on government loans and grants to offset even faster increases in college costs, the law requiring military acceptance of gay and lesbian soldiers, and his increased regulation of Wall Street.

The question-and-answer period included only two canned questions from picked volunteers at caucuses in Coraville and Cedar Rapids, which prompted 687-word and 407-word responses from Obama.

Addressing Iowa Democrats, Obama frames 2012 race as one 'for our children'

Gingrich places fourth, slams Romney and praises Santorum

Huntsman to Iowa winner: 'Welcome to New Hampshire -- nobody cares'

GOP Iowa caucuses morph into tight two-way horse race

Rick Perry, YouTube star for the month of December

View the original article here

Dems pushing sand into GOP gears (Daily Caller)

Democratic campaign officials on Wednesday happily tried to pour sand into the GOP’s nomination machinery by deriding Gov. Mitt Romney’s electability and his commitment to conservative policies, by commiserating with Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and with former Sen. Rick Santorum, and by complimenting Gov. Rick Perry.

“People don’t know where Gov. Romney stands today and where he will stand tomorrow, and that’s troubling people in the Republican Party,” said David Axelrod, who has worked as chief political strategist for President Barack Obama since 2008.

Romney is heading into the New Hampshire primary without solidifying his lead, so “he’s got to win by 30 point or so to continue his momentum,” said Jim Messina, Obama’s campaign manager.

The press conference was held the morning after Romney edged out former Sen. Rick Santorum for first place in the Iowa caucuses. This win, although narrow, will help Romney maintain his poll-tested lead in New Hampshire before heading to  important primaries in South Carolina and Florida. (RELATED: Romney edges out Santorum by 8 votes)

Democrats were pleased with the results because they want a long and tangled race. A long struggle may drain Republican activists’ enthusiasm for their candidate and will also muddy up the public’s image of the eventual GOP nominee.

If Romney had “won a resounding victory [in Iowa], and improved on how he had done four years ago … I think he could have argued persuasively that he was bringing that party together,” Axelrod said. Now, he added, “it is very possible that this race could go on for a while.”

Messina also used the Iowa results to taunt the GOP for its lack of infrastructure in various states, while Axelrod said the Iowa caucus showed that the Republican base is no more enthusiastic than are Obama’s supporters. Romney “spent $4.5 million, including his super PAC, and got six votes less than he got four years ago,” he said.

GOP officials, however, said their Iowa turnout of almost 123,000 caucus-goers is a party record.

Throughout the press event, Axelrod charged that Romney’s Iowa campaign was successful because of the super PAC.

One such group, Restore our Future, was established by three of Romney’s former aides. It spent almost $3 million on advertising, much of which slammed fourth-place finisher, Newt Gingrich.

“Romney called in the air force in the form of his super PAC to carpet bomb [Gingrich in what was] undoubtedly the most brutal and negative campaign Iowa has seen,” Axelrod said, adding that he expected the group to begin attacking Santorum during the New Hampshire primary.

Axelrod also boosted Gov. Perry, who placed fifth in the Iowa caucus. Romney’s opposition to the DREAM Act — a partial amnesty for young illegal immigrants — has “positioned him out of the mainstream of the electorate,” Axelrod said. However, he added, “I actually think Gov. Perry was right, when he said this is smart investment for us as a country.” (RELATED: Democrats work to scare up Hispanic vote)

2010 polls showed Romney’s position is centrist because the DREAM Act measure was opposed by 42 to 55 percent of respondents.

Neither Axelrod nor Messina complimented libertarian Republican Ron Paul, liberal Republican Jon Huntsman — who had spent all his effort to win the New Hampshire primary — or Rep. Michele Bachman, who announced her withdrawal from the race on Wednesday. (RELATED: Michele Bachmann ends presidential campaign after Iowa loss)

Follow Neil on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Dems pushing sand into GOP gears

In New Hampshire, a tale of two Newts

Holder to testify on Fast and Furious before Issa’s committee

Top 10: Kate Beckinsale's hottest moments [SLIDESHOW]

While neck and neck with Romney at Iowa, Santorum has far lead on Google

View the original article here

Democrats work to scare up Hispanic vote (Daily Caller)

Multiple Democratic pundits are making a coordinated allegation that the popular immigration enforcement policies embraced by Republican presidential candidates are “extreme” and have deeply damaged the GOP’s prospects among Hispanic Americans.

“The Democrats say that every four years, and its nonsense,” Jason Poblete, a Hispanic lawyer who formerly worked for the Republican National Committee, told The Daily Caller. GOP candidates can win up to 40 percent of the redistribution-minded Hispanic vote by treating them like other voters, he said.

“I don’t think there is anything these [Republican] candidates are saying that is not supported by at last 40 percent of Americans. … Some of the things they’re pushing have 80 percent support,” said Dan Stein, president of the Federation for American Immigration Reform.

The charges of electoral damage were pushed by Democratic activists, including Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Bill Burton, a former Obama aide, who now runs an independent political group, Priorities USA Action.

Democrats see Hispanics, especially first-time voters, as a vital voting bloc in the November election. Their strategy is to spur Hispanic turnout for Obama to above 65 percent by portraying the GOP’s opposition to illegal immigration as bigotry towards the Hispanic population of 50 million.

Hispanics may provide a winning margin in several critical states, including Florida, Colorado, North Carolina and Virginia.

The United States now hosts an illegal immigrant population of roughly 11 million Hispanics. The population of non-Hispanic illegal immigrants is smaller.

“The strongly held views of all the Republicans are against everything that matters in the Hispanic community when it comes to domestic issues,” Wasserman Schultz told reporters at a Dec. 3, press conference in Des Moines, Iowa. Hispanics would have felt “revulsion … from the commentary and violence” during the GOP debates, she said. “I don’t mean physical violence,” she clarified.

“Republican candidates have managed to do permanent damage to their general election prospects [by embracing] a divisive and unworkable immigration policy,” Burton wrote, adding that former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney “savaged [Speaker of the House Newt] Gingrich and [Texas Gov. Rick] Perry for advocating anything less than a draconian, systematic deportation of all undocumented immigrants.”

Democrats’ criticism was chiefly aimed at Romney, who announced his opposition to the DREAM Act, which would provide a partial amnesty to many younger illegal immigrants.

“If Romney becomes the Republican nominee, his position on immigration would be the most extreme of any presidential nominee of our time,” the DNC alleged in a Jan. 4 press release.

However, a November 2010 poll of 1,000 likely voters by Stein’s organization showed that roughly 40 percent of Americans supported the act, while roughly 55 percent opposed it. A month later, a more favorable set of questions in a Gallup poll yielded only 54 percent support and 42 percent opposition for the act.

“If Romney were calling for mass round-ups and deportations, that would be a minority position, but he doesn’t call for that — he’s for attrition through enforcement and E-Verify, which polls show has 80 percent support,” Stein told TheDC. E-Verify is a computer system that companies can use to verify prospective employees’ work eligibility.

Partly because of the stalled economy, that enforcement policy is popular among white working-class Americans, who provide a larger share of the swing vote than do Hispanics.

The Democrats’ hard-edged and questionable allegations are driven by their need to boost the Hispanic vote for President Barack Obama.

His ratings are in the 40s, far below the level he needs to win critical states like Florida and North Carolina, and other potentially winnable states like Nevada and Arizona.

Obama’s support among Hispanics reached 68 percent in 2008, but has since fallen in various polls to near 50 percent.

A December poll by the Pew Hispanic Center, however, showed that 68 percent of registered Latino voters prefer Obama to Romney, despite Obama’s 49 percent approval among Hispanics.

But that low approval rate may sharply reduce Hispanic turnout in November. (RELATED: Registration race for 2012 underway)

The low approval is based on Hispanics’ desire for a strong economy, rather than Obama’s failure to push for an amnesty .

The Pew poll, for example, said 33 percent of Hispanics rated immigration as an “extremely important” issue.

But jobs scored at 50 percent, followed by education, at 49 percent, and health care, at 45 percent. Taxes scored at 34 percent, as did the federal budget deficit, putting them above immigration’s score of 33 percent

Democrats and their allied ethnic lobbies, however, continue to use the issue of immigration to rally Hispanic votes around the Democratic party, said Poblete. “They create this racial boogieman and use it around election time,” he said.

“To win this battle in the long term, you have to resist the urge” to treat Hispanics as single-issue voters obsessed with immigration, he told TheDC. GOP candidates should avoid ethnic pandering, and can successfully woo mainstream Hispanics as they would other voters, with pro-growth, pro-education and pro-family policies, he continued.

Still, he warned the GOP can’t win a majority of Hispanics when running against a tax-and-spend Democratic candidate. “Immigrants are rational, and because they’re poorer than the average American, they seek large government programs,” which the Democrats are eager to provide, he concluded.

Sarah Palin smiles: 'Refudiating' goes mainstream?

Gingrich floats partnership with Santorum

Well, who wouldn't?

How Rick Santorum can win the nomination

Kardashian clan: Coming to a newsstand near you

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

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

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

Democrats’ ‘Daddy Warbucks’ want more tax bucks (Daily Caller)

A party calling themselves the “Patriotic Millionaires” are planning to lobby legislators Wednesday for higher taxes on the wealthy, but the group of taxpayers have left behind one of their founders: Andrew Tobias, the Democratic Party’s treasurer.

Tobias is listed as a member in the Nov. 14 message from the group, but his name is absent from the list of 19 wealthy men — and only 2 wealthy women — who will ask Congress on Wednesday to boost tax bills for them and roughly 375,000 other people earning more than $1 million per year.

Tobias has served as treasurer and chief fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee since 1999. The committee has raised hundreds of millions of dollars to help elect numerous Democratic legislators and President Barack Obama.

Since 1999, the national debt has risen from $5.6 trillion to almost $15 trillion. That works out to an average of $3.74 billion for every day that Tobias has worked at the DNC.

The debt has increased by roughly $5 trillion since Tobias helped elect Obama in 2008.

Tobias is personally wealthy, mainly owing to income earned from writing financial advice books.

Tobias’s promotion of higher taxes compliments the campaign by Obama to raise taxes on “millionaires and billionaires.” The pitch is a central part of his re-election campaign, and some have alleged it is intended to portray Republicans as defenders of the rich and as comfortable during a tough recession.

In contrast, Republicans say wealthy people should be allowed to keep most of their money, and that low taxes spur the economic growth and job-creation that may reduce today’s unemployment rate below its national level of 9 percent.

The number of millionaires plunged 27 percent in 2008. However, since Obama’s election, despite a stalled economy, the number has risen by 16 percent in 2009 and 8 percent in 2010, according to a March 2011 report by the Spectrem Group, a market-research firm.

In 2008, the top 10 percent of earners paid 71 percent of all income taxes, and the top 1 percent paid 38 percent of all income taxes, according to federal data analyzed by the Heritage Foundation. That’s a higher proportion than prior to the tax cuts won by by former President George W. Bush, when the top 10 percent paid 66 percent of all income taxes, and the top 1 percent paid 34 percent of income taxes.

In 2008, the bottom 50 percent of earners paid 2.7 percent of income taxes.

The 21 wealthy people seeking higher taxes today are all Democrats, and most have contributed heavily to Obama and other Democrats.

For example, David desJardins, a Californian who made his fortune while working for Google, has donated $335,000 to Democratic causes since 2008.

The 21 protestors, including several Google employees, lawyers and venture capitalists, have donated at least $3.2 million to Democratic political groups since 2008, according to the Open Secrets database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

For every $1 donated by this group, the national debt grew b $1.56 million while Obama served as president.

It is not clear how many jobs the “Patriotic Millionaires” have created since 2008.

Follow Neil on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Democrats' 'Daddy Warbucks' want more tax bucks

EPA using 'press release science' to justify regulations, congressmen say

Romney campaign refuses to clarify position on working with Iranian terrorist group

Kagan controversy good for the public, court watchers say

Kagan emails lead to calls for inquiry over her involvement in Obamacare

View the original article here

Senate Democrats block vote to overturn FCC Internet regulations (Daily Caller)

The U.S. Senate voted 46-52 along partisan lines, shooting down a Republican effort to stop the Federal Communications Commission from regulating the Internet through net neutrality.

The net neutrality rules will take affect November 20. The White House had promised to veto the Republican legislation if it passed. The fate of net neutrality will now likely be determined in 2012 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

Six Democrats and 280 Republicans in the House and Senate voted  to overturn net neutrality. Two Republicans, 228 Democrats and one independent voted to uphold it.

Before the vote, FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell — one of the two dissenting voices on the FCC — told TheDC, ”This used to not be a partisan issue to keep government influence out of the Internet, both in the U.S. and internationally.”

The rules were passed by the FCC in December 2010 in a highly controversial vote that went against a previous ruling by a D.C. court that said net neutrality regulations were outside the commission’s authority.

Supporters of the FCC’s rules say the regulatory agency is within its legal jurisdiction to issue the rules as a means to protect tech startups and small businesses from larger companies, thereby, they hope, ensuring the protection of free speech. Opponents say the Internet’s success is due to market forces working free of government intervention.

Democratic Sen. John Kerry called the results of the vote a “victory for innovation, consumers, and common sense.” (RELATED: Norquist threatens Senate on net neutrality vote)

“Today, the Senate refused to hand over the Internet to a small group of corporate interests, and we need to keep up the fight because we know this isn’t the last we’ve heard of the assault on net neutrality,” Kerry said in a statement following the vote.

Minnesota Democratic Sen. Al Franken, a staunch supporter of the FCC’s Internet rules, has argued that net neutrality is “the most important free speech issue of our time.”

The view that net neutrality ensures free speech permeates the FCC’s Internet rules and is a perspective echoed on the international level by the United Nations.

“There are no free speech issues on the Internet in the U.S.,” McDowell told TheDC. McDowell said the First Amendment was the “bullwark” against government encroachment of free speech, making net neutrality regulation unnecessary.

On the Senate floor Wednesday, Franken argued that the success of YouTube and Google would not have been possible without net neutrality.” Republican Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who led the Republican effort to end the regulation, reminded Franken that the FCC’s net neutrality rules did not exist when those companies were created. Franken was elected to the Senate in a highly controversial election, in which he was backed by billionaire George Soros — a significant contributor to organizations that are ardent proponents of net neutrality.

Americans for Tax Reform (ATR) President Grover Norquist joined with other tax reform advocacy groups to send a letter to senators on Tuesday stating that votes on net neutrality would be taken into consideration when their organizations rated the senators for their yearly voting scorecards.

“Politicians on both sides of the aisle always talk about opposing job-killing and unnecessary regulations,” Kelly Cobb, government affairs manager at ATR, told TheDC.  ”Here, they had their chance, but Senate Democrats voted as a block to impose new, unwarranted Internet rules.”

“It’s discouraging that the Senate was unable to overcome partisan political bickering to overturn a regulation for which the FCC has no congressional authority to implement,” Taxpayers Protection Alliance President David Williams  — another signee of Tuesday’s letter — told TheDC. “The Internet has become another casualty in the war against the free market.”

“Today, 52 lawmakers decided to give up on making law and instead allow unelected, unaccountable Obama administration bureaucrats to illegally do their jobs for them,” said Seton Motley, president of Less Government, in a statement following the vote.

“If these 52 senators don’t want to do their jobs, why did they ask their constituents to give them the honor and opportunity?,” Motley asked. ” These egregious misrepresentations are easily correctable.  And we the people will begin doing so, starting next November.”

Follow Josh on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Senate Democrats block vote to overturn FCC Internet regulations

Romney: Send Out the Aides!

Mitt Romney: Lawyer for NLRB should lose his job

Daley FAIL: What it means

Occupy movement's 'vibrant brand of urbanism' sends EMT to hospital

View the original article here

Durbin: If 2012 is a ‘referendum,’ Democrats are ‘in trouble’ (Daily Caller)

Illinois Democratic Sen. Dick Durbin told the Chicago Tribune that if the 2012 election is a “referendum” on President Barack Obama, then Democrats are “in trouble.”

In an interview Thursday for the Tribune’s “Chicago Live” series, Durbin was asked about the election.

“If it is a referendum, then we’re in trouble because the economy’s not good and people’ll say, ‘well, I just want to make it clear I don’t like the way things are,’” Durbin said.

“However,” Durbin clarified, “it won’t be. It’ll be a contest. And there’ll be two people — the president, and the Republican nominee — with very different views on what to do with America, where it should go from here, and that’s what the voters will make their choice on.”

See the video here. Durbin’s comments are six minutes in.

Follow Alexis on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Durbin: If 2012 is a 'referendum,' Democrats are 'in trouble'

Matthew Perry lists $20 million in real estate but has no comment on capital gains tax

FBI report warns of growing Juggalo threat

Rep. Trey Gowdy: I'm not a 'tea party congressman'

Critics: Obama's college aid plan increases tuition costs, hurts students

View the original article here

Dems invoke the ‘Kennedy Card’ to defend Obamacare in wake of failing CLASS Act (Daily Caller)

House Democrats worked to tug on the heartstrings Wednesday, playing to the “Kennedy card” several times while defending Obamacare in a congressional hearing. Sen. Ted Kennedy, who passed away in 2009, called socialized medicine “the cause of my life.”

The House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Health, and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, were holding a joint hearing on the failures of Obamacare’s Community Living Assistance Services and Supports Act, or CLASS Act.

The CLASS Act was supposed to be the part of Obamacare that provided a public “long-term care” option. It was also supposed to be financially self-sustaining. Conservative allegations that the CLASS Act was not financially self-sustaining were confirmed a little over a week ago when President Obama’s Health and Human Service Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced that the administration will not be implementing the CLASS Act because it is not financially solvent and, Sebelius said, it has no “viable path forward.”

Republicans view the CLASS Act’s failure as a major victory in the fight against Obamacare — and point to it as a “gimmick” used to make the president’s signature legislation look less expensive.

As the CLASS Act, and Obamacare in its entirety, came under fire yet again in Wednesday’s hearing, Democrats turned to the “Kennedy card” as one of their most frequent defenses.

Former Rhode Island Democratic Rep. Patrick Kennedy even came back to Congress to defend the CLASS Act, a “key priority” of his father — former Massachusetts Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy. Patrick Kennedy testified as part of special hearing panel that included Louisiana Republican Rep. Charles Boustany, Montana Republican Rep. Denny Rehberg and Florida Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch. The other panel that testified before the subcommittee consisted of two senior Obama administration officials, who were present to defend the CLASS Act.

Texas Democratic Rep. Gene Green offered glowing remarks for the late senator’s son, and thanked Patrick Kennedy for Ted Kennedy’s work in Congress. “I want to particularly welcome our former colleague Patrick Kennedy. Patrick, we worked together on lots of mental health issues over the years and I want to thank you for your service to the American people, and particularly to your district in Rhode Island,” Green said before defending Obamacare. “But, also I want to thank you for the service of your father. Without your father’s work in the Senate, I don’t have enough fingers and toes to list the issues that would not be in the law today, including the CLASS Act. [I want] just to generally thank you for the service of your family — I think all of us thank you for that.”

Illinois Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky cited Patrick Kennedy in her comments, too. “As former Representative Kennedy said, repealing the CLASS Act doesn’t mean that the widespread financial, physical and emotional suffering of older and disabled Americans goes away,” Schakowsky said as she questioned an Obama administration Health and Human Services official.

Right before accusing Republicans of turning the now-failed CLASS Act into a “political football,” Florida Democratic Rep. Kathy Castor invoked Kennedy rhetoric: “I’m going to borrow Patrick Kennedy’s language of a ‘Demographic Tsunami,’” Castor said, referring to issues she thinks exist in the long-term healthcare industry.

Florida Democratic Rep. Ted Deutch cited Ted Kennedy’s “dream” in his comments to the committee. Deutch isn’t a member of the Energy and Commerce committee, but appeared with Patrick Kennedy, Rehberg and Boustany on the opening special panel. “Senator Kennedy eloquently captured how our long-term care system is failing the American people when he said, ‘too often, they have to give up the American Dream — the dignity of a job, a home, and a family — so they can qualify for Medicaid, the only program that will support them,’” Deutch said in prepared testimony.

Even Patrick Kennedy played the Kennedy card. In his testimony, he cited his father’s work on the CLASS Act and how his father was deathly ill while working on finishing the legislation. “Our family was very fortunate,” Patrick Kennedy said in his prepared testimony. “We had the resources to provide my father with any long-term services and supports that he needed as he approached the end of his life — but he knew that most working families are not as fortunate. The inclusion of the long-term care infrastructure (CLASS) in health care reform was a signature issue for my father.”

“Even before he became ill, my father saw a need for an alternative solution, realizing that for persons with disabilities and older Americans, long-term services and supports are their primary unmet care need, and that while 45 million Americans lack medical insurance, 200 million adult Americans lack any insurance protection against the costs of these services,” Patrick Kennedy added.

Republican Rehberg, in his testimony, said the Democrats’ testimonies were political spin. Rehberg, who is the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, hit the Democrats for hiding the damage caused by the CLASS Act underneath political games.

“Once we stripped away the political spin, brushed off budget gimmicks and cut through the bureaucratic jungle, we saw a foundation pillar [the CLASS Act] of the president’s healthcare law for what it really was: truly a Ponzi scheme that apparently was included in the bill solely to help the bill appear deficit-neutral,” Rehberg said.

Follow Matthew on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Cards, Rangers both asked for divine help in game 6

The bloated rise of the diversitocracy

White House orders independent review of Solyndra scandal

Al-Qaida plants its flag --- literally --- in Libya

A closer look at James Madison, 'Father of Politics'

View the original article here

Democrats’ favorite ‘conservative Republican’ economist is neither Republican nor conservative (Daily Caller)

As the fight over President Barack Obama’s American Jobs Act heats up on Capitol Hill, Moody’s economist Mark Zandi would seem like a dream come true for liberal pundits and Democratic politicians alike.

When progressives try to make the case that all the economy needs is more spending to boost economic growth and job creation they often turn to Zandi, a former advisor to Senator John McCain’s 2008 campaign for president, as exhibit A.

“Republican economist Mark Zandi declared the President’s plan would keep the U.S. from sliding back into the recession, add two points to the GDP, and add 1.9 million jobs,” Rep. Judy Chu, a California Democrat, said on the floor last week.

Appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” former President Bill Clinton argued that Zandi’s belief that over one million jobs could be created by the president’s new jobs plan is proof that such rosy predictions are supported “right across the economic board.”

Writing in Slate earlier this month, Jacob Weisberg said that the benefits of a new stimulus package were “received wisdom among economists, including many conservative ones.” Specifically, Weisberg cites Zandi — “John McCain’s economic advisor” — who has argued that the 2009 stimulus prevented unemployment from rising another two percentage points.

It’s true that Zandi supports more stimulus spending. “The fiscal boost from the jobs package next year would be larger than in the first year of the 2009 economic stimulus,” Zandi said in a statement released by the White House last week. However, the implication that Zandi is a conservative Republican is, at best, deeply misleading. (RELATED: New Obama plan promises to raise taxes, worry Democrats)

To his credit, Zandi has never tried to hide his ideological beliefs. “I’m a registered Democrat,” he told The Washington Post in a 2009 profile. He worked with McCain not because he agreed with the GOP’s economic agenda but because of his policy of “help(ing) any policymaker who asks, whether they be a Republican or a Democrat.” According Douglas Holtz-Eakin, McCain’s chief economic advisor, Zandi was brought on to the campaign to provide instant analysis of economic news, not to set policy.

Democrats first began citing Zandi’s tenuous conservative credentials and support for government spending during the debate over Obama’s original stimulus plan. “I’m just saying what Mark Zandi from Moody’s, an adviser to John McCain, is saying: You have to have a package of this robustness if you’re going to make a difference,” then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi said during a press conference in early 2009.

New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer had referred to him as a “conservative Republican” in an interview with Fox News the month before.

At the time, some in the GOP complained to the media that Democrats were getting away with implying Zandi was a Republican who backed their plans. “He’s doing a press call with Schumer today and he’s advising Democrats on this bill,” said one GOP staffer in an email to The Post, “but he’s always cited as a ‘former McCain adviser’ as if that means he’s a Republican endorsing the Democratic proposal.”

With the Obama administration pushing for a new round of stimulus spending, some conservative advocacy groups are pushing back on the Democrats’ assertion that Zandi is a right-leaning economist.

“Mark Zandi is a registered Democrat and an advocate of Keynesian economics,” says Barney Keller, a spokesman for the influential Club for Growth. “He’s about as conservative as Paul Krugman, and wrong just as often.”

Zandi could not be immediately reached for comment.

Follow Will on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Democrats' favorite 'conservative Republican' economist is neither Republican nor conservative

Gingers unwanted: World's largest sperm bank turns away redheads

Obama Rose Garden speech reveals route to victory in 2012

Republican legal group files ethics complaint against Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Obama's plan to curb muni bond tax exemptions would hurt local governments

View the original article here

Democrats open fire on Senate candidate Tommy Thompson (Daily Caller)

Former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson officially entered the U.S. Senate race as a Republican candidate Tuesday. Already, Democrats are pouncing on his record, labeling him as a fiscally irresponsible spender and super lobbyist.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) released a one-page sheet on Thompson taking issue with his record as governor. According to the DSCC, spending in the state of Wisconsin increased 118 percent under Thompson’s tenure, and more than 8,500 employees were added to the government payroll.

It also highlights the fact that the state’s debt grew by $1.8 billion during Thompson’s tenure, and that spending grew at 39 percent higher than the rate of inflation.

“Even rank and file conservatives are disgusted with Thompson’s record as governor and his work as a DC super lobbyist,” said DSCC spokesman Matt Canter in a statement.

“As Wisconsin’s most fiscally irresponsible governor, Tommy Thompson doubled state spending, increased the state debt and expanded Wisconsin government by nearly 10,000 state workers,” he added. “Since then Tommy has cashed in on his cozy relationships within the Bush administration and joined the ranks of Washington, DC’s super lobbyists, greasing the wheels of government to benefit his special interest clients.”

After serving as governor of Wisconsin for an unprecedented four terms, Thompson was appointed as Secretary of Health and Human Services by President George W. Bush. In 2008, he ran for president only to drop out early after his poll numbers refused to climb.

Thompson may have a tough road in the campaign to replace Sen. Herb Kohl. In August, the conservative Club for Growth pre-empted his official bid by releasing a negative ad, aligning Thompson with President Obama’s health care bill.

Follow Amanda on Twitter.

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Ted Turner: It's time for Rupert Murdoch 'to step down'

Limbaugh: Obama jobs bill is 'nothing more than a wet dream tax bill'

Poll: Warren narrowly leads Brown in Massachusetts U.S. Senate race

I Know How She Does It: With Olivia Munn! [SLIDESHOW]

Round 2: Linda McMahon running to replace Sen. Joe Lieberman

View the original article here

Second ethics complaint to be filed against Wasserman Schultz over DNC ad (Daily Caller)

The Republican National Lawyers Association (RNLA) will submit a new ethics complaint against Democratic National Committee Chair Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida, The Daily Caller has learned.

The complaint, which will be filed on Thursday with the Office of Congressional Ethics, takes issue with DNC ads that appear to violate House rules.

Thursday’s complaint will be the second the RNLA has leveled at Wasserman Schultz. Earlier this week the group sent a letter to the OCE about a 30-second ad touting President Barack Obama’s jobs plan. The video featured footage from Obama’s Sept. 8 speech to a joint session of Congress.

House ethics rules prohibit members of Congress from using footage of official House proceedings for political purposes.

The letter that will be sent Thursday doubles down on the original complaint, targeting newly-released Spanish-language ads in Tampa, Denver, Miami and Las Vegas. The ads proclaim in Spanish: “In the face of Republicans, the President can’t do it alone. Read the plan. Stand together for more jobs.”

The RNLA letter calls for an immediate investigation by OCE and the House Ethics Committee. (RELATED: Second ethics complaint to be filed against Wasserman Schultz for DNC ad)

“The Obama Administration, the DNC and the Democrat leadership in the House believe in rules only as they apply to others,” RNLA Chairman David Norcross said in a statement.

“At a time when the president and the House Minority Leader repeatedly plead for bi-partisanship they spare no effort to be confrontational wherever and whenever possible,” Norcross said. “They certainly don’t let House rules stand in their way.”

Follow Amanda on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Second ethics complaint to be filed against Wasserman Schultz over DNC ad

Rick Perry goes on the attack, refers to Mitt Romney as 'Obama-lite'

TheDC Interview: US ambassador to Syria on what comes after Assad, witnessing regime's brutality

Sam Brownback to endorse Rick Perry Thursday

Google's Eric Schmidt faces barrage of questions from senators

View the original article here