Gun debate still lingers in Colorado

DENVER — DENVER The last time Colorado enacted gun-control measures was in the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting. Once the laws were on the books, there was little acrimony.

The state's latest batch of gun-control laws -- coming after a gunman's deadly rampage at a suburban Denver movie theater a year ago -- has sparked a struggle over guns that shows little signs of fading. Gun-rights advocates are trying to recall two state senators who backed the package, and dozens of Republican county sheriffs are suing to overturn it.

"This is going to remain a political hot potato for Democrats for many, many months," said gun-rights activist Ari Armstrong.

In the months after the gunman's shooting spree left 12 people dead and injured 70 others, there was little public discussion of gun control here. The shooting at a midnight showing of the Batman film "The Dark Knight Rises" occurred in a key swing county in one of the most hotly contested battleground states in last year's presidential election.

But President Barack Obama, seeking re-election, did not bring up gun control in a state that cherishes its western frontier image. Neither did most Colorado Democrats.

It wasn't until December's shooting at a Connecticut elementary school left 20 first-graders and six adults dead that gun control rose in prominence. By March, Colorado became the only state outside the Democratic Party's coastal bases to pass sweeping gun-control measures, including universal background checks and a ban on high-capacity magazines.

After the Columbine attack, voters closed a loophole that allowed buyers of firearms at gun shows to evade background checks. In the wake of the Aurora massacre, the prospects for more gun control in this libertarian-minded state seemed shaky at best.

In a television interview days after the shooting, Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper appeared to cast doubt on the effectiveness of new gun-control laws.

Hickenlooper said he had quiet conversations around the state and was struck by wide support for universal background checks.

In November, Democrats won both the state House and Senate as Colorado helped re-elect Obama. And on Dec.12, Hickenlooper declared that "the time is right" to talk about gun control.

Two days later in Connecticut, Adam Lanza, 20, shot and killed his mother, then drove to Sandy Hook Elementary School and opened fire before killing himself. The attack shocked a country that had grown hardened to mass shootings. Obama vowed an all-out push for gun control.

In Colorado, a similar push was already queued up.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's gun-control organization, Mayors Against Illegal Guns, hired four lobbyists to help push gun bills in Colorado. Vice President Joe Biden called state legislators to urge them to vote for the package. Biden told them that Colorado, with its western traditions, could help set the tone for national gun policy.

To Republicans and gun-rights groups, the message was clear. "The Obama administration and these East Coast politicians decided that, as Colorado goes, so goes the rest of the nation," said Republican state Rep. Mark Waller.

Republican legislators fought furiously to delay the bills' passage. Hundreds of demonstrators circled the state Capitol and packed the legislative chambers. Democrats were confident voters were on their side.

"The voices that are the loudest (in protest) are not the ones that determine elections here," Laura Chapin, a Democratic strategist who worked for local gun-control groups, said after the bills passed.

For gun-rights advocates, the movie theater attack exposed serious problems that Democrats were ignoring: bans on guns in public areas, and the issue of mental health. James Holmes, a former neuroscience graduate student accused of the theater shootings, purchased his guns legally -- including a rifle and a high-capacity magazine able to fire 100 bullets -- but also had seen a psychiatrist who feared he was dangerous.

The legislature agreed to Hickenlooper's $20million plan to expand mental health services. But the gun-control package got the most attention. The bill banning larger-capacity magazines squeaked through by a single vote in the state Senate.

In June, Colorado gun activists collected enough signatures to trigger recall elections for two state senators, including that chamber's president. If Democratic efforts to block them fail, the recall votes could be the first electoral test of post-Sandy Hook gun control.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to letters@usatoday.com. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Posted

View the original article here

After a New-Look Debate, a Harsh Light Falls on the Moderator

Mr. Lehrer’s light touch was widely criticized during and after the debate on Wednesday night, particularly by Democrats who felt that President Obama’s Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, effectively moderated the debate himself. Speaking to CNN after the debate, Stephanie Cutter, the president’s deputy campaign manager, said, “I sometimes wondered if we even needed a moderator because we had Mitt Romney. We should rethink that for the next debate.”

But conservatives suggested that critiques of Mr. Lehrer were just excuses for Mr. Obama’s own poor performance in the debate.

Mr. Lehrer, 78, the former anchor of the “NewsHour” on PBS, moderated 11 presidential debates between 1988 and 2008. He had decided to do no more, but the Commission on Presidential Debates persuaded him to come back this year.

He said he was persuaded by the potential of the new format: it allowed for six 15-minute conversations, each starting with a question and two-minute answers from each candidate. The format was appealing to Mr. Lehrer, who has consistently said that his job as moderator is to get out of the way and get the candidates talking.

He succeeded in getting out of the candidates’ way in Wednesday night’s debate, and when he did speak, it was often in phrases like “excuse me,” “wait” and “please.” Throughout the evening, he strained to interrupt when the candidates went over their allotted time. And at one point he faced a testy Mr. Obama, who complained that the moderator had cut him off by saying that time was up. “I had five seconds before you interrupted me,” Mr. Obama said.

At other times, both candidates seemed to completely ignore Mr. Lehrer. When Mr. Obama criticized Mr. Romney as failing to provide more specifics about his economic plans, Mr. Romney insisted on responding. “No, but,” Mr. Lehrer said as Mr. Romney kept on going. He spoke for a minute, completing his entire thought without interruption from the moderator.

Because the first five topic areas took up more than 15 minutes each, the candidates only had three minutes to talk about the sixth topic, cures for partisan gridlock in Washington.

In an e-mailed statement Thursday afternoon, Mr. Lehrer said he thought the new format accomplished its purpose, “which was to facilitate direct, extended exchanges between the candidates about issues of substance.” He continued, “Part of my moderator mission was to stay out of the way of the flow, and I had no problems with doing so. My only real personal frustration was discovering that 90 minutes was not enough time in that more open format to cover every issue that deserved attention.”

The critiques came from several sides of the media spectrum.

“Boy, Jim Lehrer got rolled over,” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said on “Morning Joe” on Thursday morning. “You could see an exasperated look on Jim’s face when they would just keep plowing right over him,” said Gretchen Carlson on “Fox & Friends” on Fox News. Speaking on CNBC Thursday morning, Steve Liesman offered up what he called a “private-sector solution” to the moderator dilemma: “Why can’t the two guys take care of themselves?”

The complaints about Mr. Lehrer seemed loudest from the left. Bill Press, whose liberal radio program is simulcast on Current TV, started on Thursday by saying Mr. Lehrer “lost control of the debate, and Mitt Romney ran all over him like a truck crushing a bug.” The liberal media monitoring group Media Matters said Mr. Lehrer had “lost the debate” by missing “repeated opportunities to press Mitt Romney into offering specifics on his policy proposals.” Richard Kim, a writer for The Nation, concluded that Mr. Lehrer’s version of moderation “is fundamentally unequipped to deal with the era of post-truth, asymmetric polarization politics — and it should be retired.”

The six-topic format for a debate primarily about domestic policy also drew complaints that many issues — gun control, abortion, reproductive rights, gay rights, the environment — were not addressed.

Alan Schroeder, a Northeastern University professor who has written books about debates, said that “in Jim Lehrer’s defense, this was an untested format.”

Mr. Schroeder said Wednesday’s session reminded him of televised debates he has studied in France and Spain, where “the role of the moderator is to set up the topics, then hang back and let the candidates go at it.”

The next debate between Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney will be moderated by Candy Crowley of CNN, who notably did not join the chorus of complainers about Mr. Lehrer’s performance on Wednesday night. She credited Mr. Lehrer for trying throughout his moderating career to get candidates to engage with each other.

“In the end, this debate is, you know, brought to you by these candidates,” she said on CNN after the debate, “and to me, it’s better to hear from the candidates than to hear from the moderator.”

Jeremy W. Peters contributed reporting.

View the original article here

Using Twitter, California Politicians Join Chick-fil-A Debate

As Congress wrangles over tax cuts and agricultural assistance heading into the August recess, Representative Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, took sides in a different fight Thursday.

“What I tweeted was I’m a Kentucky Fried Chicken fan,” the House minority leader told reporters with a grin.

Jim Lo Scalzo/European Pressphoto AgencyRepresentative Nancy Pelosi of California.

Ms. Pelosi, who was referring to a preference she expressed on Twitter last week, is one of the many politicians who have joined the recent debate about same-sex marriage, sparked when the president and chief operating officer of Chick-fil-A said the fast food chain supports “the biblical definition of the family unit.”

Among the politicians who have weighed in is Ed Lee, the mayor of San Francisco, who wrote on Twitter last Thursday that he was “very disappointed” in Chick-fil-A’s stance.

“Closest #ChickFilA to San Francisco is 40 miles away & I strongly recommend that they not try to come any closer,” Mr. Lee wrote.

Ms. Pelosi, whose congressional district includes most of San Francisco, said, “I believe in freedom of expression, but I believe the mayor of San Francisco has freedom of expression as well.” The issue is ultimately up to local officials, she said.

Using social media, thousands of people are planning a “same-sex kiss day” at Chick-fil-A locations Friday.

As liberals expressed their displeasure with Chick-fil-A and threatened to boycott, conservatives rallied to the chain’s defense. Hundreds of thousands poured into locations all over the country Wednesday to show their support at the suggestion of Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor.

No word on whether Ms. Pelosi prefers her KFC chicken Original Recipe or Extra Crispy.

View the original article here

Pennsylvania's Voter ID Law Spurs Debate

Marc Levy/Associated PressPennsylvania House Majority Leader Mike Turzai at the Capitol in Harrisburg in 2011.

A top Pennsylvania Republican’s remark this weekend that the state’s new voter ID law would help Mitt Romney win the state has reignited a debate over whether the law is intended to curb fraud, as Republicans say, or to depress Democratic turnout, as Democrats charge.

The remark was made by Mike Turzai, the state’s House majority leader, when he spoke over the weekend to a meeting of the Republican State Committee and ticked off a number of recent conservative achievements by Pennsylvania’s Republican-led legislature.

“Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done,” he said, according to a report on PoliticsPA.com, a Web site that covers political news.

When Pennsylvania passed a law this year requiring voters to show photo identification before casting ballots, Democrats warned that it would make it harder for many of their supporters — including young voters, and members of minorities — to cast ballots. A number of the state’s colleges, for instance, will have to change the identification cards they issue so students will be able to use them to vote.

A spokesman for Mr. Turzai, Stephen Miskin, said that the remarks, which were made Saturday in Hershey, Pa., were simply meant to underscore that combating voter fraud was important and that doing so would level the playing field in the next election.

He declined to say if he thought that fraud had played a role in past presidential elections in Pennsylvania.

View the original article here

Vel�zquez and Dilan Clash in Debate Among Four Seeking House Seat

Ms. Velázquez and Mr. Dilan took part in a forum on NY1’s “Inside City Hall,” along with the two other candidates in the June 26 Democratic primary for New York’s redrawn Seventh Congressional District, which includes parts of Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan.

Dan O’Connor, an economist who is making his first bid for public office, criticized Ms. Velázquez for voting for the bank bailout and against auditing the Federal Reserve, noting that much of her campaign war chest came from the banking industry.

“At the end of the day, whoever writes the checks in Washington writes the policies,” said Mr. O’Connor, who called the role of money in politics a more pressing issue than the economy.

Ms. Velázquez responded that a watchdog group had said she was among the members of Congress least influenced by money.

The fourth candidate, George Martinez, a hip-hop artist and Occupy Wall Street activist, called his rivals “model politicians of a broken system.” He said Ms. Velázquez had been timid about pushing for progressive policies and asked Mr. Dilan about donations he has received from real estate developers.

“I’ve always voted the conscience of my district,” Mr. Dilan responded. Ms. Velázquez said she had secured federal money for public housing and small-business loans.

Ms. Velázquez was asked by the moderator to describe an instance in which she “broke with a political establishment.”

Ms. Velázquez, who was endorsed by Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo on Friday, replied: “I’ve been independent, I’ve been progressive, and basically, I have no relationship with the party boss from Brooklyn.”

Mr. Dilan has denied Ms. Velázquez’s accusations that he is challenging her at the behest of Assemblyman Vito J. Lopez, the head of the Brooklyn Democratic Party.

Mr. Dilan accused Ms. Velázquez of being virtually “appointed” by party bosses when she was first elected 20 years ago.

View the original article here

Romney Adviser Takes U.S. Political Debate Overseas

A senior economic adviser to Mitt Romney criticized President Obama and his policy toward crisis-torn Europe, and Germany in particular, in an op-ed article in a leading German newspaper on Saturday, raising the question of the propriety of taking America’s political fights into international affairs.

The article — written by R. Glenn Hubbard, the dean of the Columbia Business School and a former adviser in the Bush administration, and published in the business journal Handelsblatt — drew a rebuke from the Obama campaign.

“In a foreign news outlet, Governor Romney’s top economic adviser both discouraged essential steps that need to be taken to promote economic recovery and attempted to undermine America’s foreign policy abroad,” said Ben LaBolt, press secretary for the president’s re-election campaign.

Every presidential election seems to test the frequently quoted cold war-era axiom of former Senator Arthur Vandenberg, a Republican who cooperated with President Harry S. Truman, that “politics stops at the water’s edge” — though even then the rule was often observed in the breach. Separately, the Hubbard critique illustrates how the austerity-versus-stimulus debate concerning Europe is also a proxy for the ideological fight over fiscal policy that Democrats and Republicans are waging in this country.

“Unfortunately, the advice of the U.S. government regarding solutions to the crisis is misleading. For Europe and especially for Germany,” Mr. Hubbard wrote, according to a translation of his article from the Handelsblatt Web site.

He opposed what he described as the Obama administration’s efforts “to persuade Germany to stand up financially weak governments and banks in the euro zone so that the Greek crisis would not spread to other states.”

“These recommendations are not only unwise,” he added, “they also reveal ignorance of the causes of the crisis and of a growth trend in the future.”

Mr. Hubbard proposed a classic conservative pro-austerity, anti-Keynesian approach, arguing that cutting government spending will restore public confidence, encourage growth and avert future tax increases.

“Long-term confidence in solid government financing shores up growth and enables the same scope for short-term transitional assistance,” he said. “Mitt Romney, Obama’s Republican opponent, understands this very well and advises a gradual fiscal consolidation for the U.S.: structural reform to stimulate growth.”

Mr. Obama and his Treasury secretary, Timothy F. Geithner, are in the camp with economists who argue that the German-led push for austerity in Europe — at a time when businesses and consumers are too weak to spend — has produced a spiral of job losses, belt-tightening and, lately, a backlash against several governments.

But, Mr. Hubbard wrote, “President Obama’s advice to the Germans and Europe has therefore the same flaws as his own economic policy — that it pays for itself over the long term if we focus on short-term business promotion.”

When Mr. Obama ran for president in 2008, he received some criticism for a foreign trip that included a speech in Berlin before 200,000 Germans. At the time, Chancellor Angela Merkel objected to plans to use the city’s historic Brandenburg Gate as a backdrop for what a Merkel spokesman called “electioneering abroad,” leading Mr. Obama to speak at another site. But Mr. Obama did not explicitly criticize Bush administration policies, despite their prominence in the American debate that year. He mainly extolled the partnership between the United States and Germany — and Europe, more broadly — in promoting freedom and prosperity around the globe.

A Democrat with experience in foreign policy and presidential campaigns, who asked not to be identified as weighing into the debate, suggested that the Vandenberg rule had lost resonance in a polarized age. “The ‘water’s edge’ is changing, and not just because of climate change,” he said. “It’s too bad, but there it is.”

The Romney campaign declined to comment.

View the original article here

Comments by Clinton and Summers Spark Tax Cut Debate

White House officials and Congressional Democrats responded just as vigorously, saying neither the former president nor Lawrence H. Summers, a past director of the National Economic Council, ever said that all of the tax cuts should be extended.

The heated exchange illustrated how politically sensitive the tax cut expiration has become amid fresh data showing the economy slowing. A majority of voters say the federal budget deficit should be tackled with a mix of spending cuts and tax increases on the rich. In an April New York Times/CBS News poll, 56 percent favored boosting the economy by spending on education and infrastructure while raising taxes on the wealthy, against 37 percent who favored cutting taxes and spending.

But Republicans have stood firm against any tax increase, and they are on the offensive, thanks in part to the comments of Mr. Clinton and Mr. Summers.

“Even Bill Clinton came out for it, before he was against it,” Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio said.

Both Democrats released statements shortly after their televised interviews denying they had said that they favored extending all the tax cuts. President Obama has endorsed extending tax cuts for the middle class, but he has promised to oppose any extension of Bush-era tax cuts for households earning more than $250,000.

But after Friday’s weak jobs report for May, the Democrats have been on the defensive.

Representative Peter Welch, a Vermont Democrat who wants his party to stand its ground, said: “There’s a reason to be alarmed. Historically, economic sentiment in May predicts the outcome of presidential elections, and people are edgy.”

In the appearance on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that sparked the exchange, Mr. Summers appeared to signal that he favors a temporary extension of all the tax cuts. After the host, Mika Brzezinski, mentioned Mr. Clinton’s tax cut comments and the bad jobs report, she pressed Mr. Summers for his views.

He responded: “The real risk to this economy is on the side of slowdown, certainly not on the side of overheating, and that means we’ve got to make sure we don’t take gasoline out of the tank at the end of this year. That’s got to be the top priority.”

A few minutes later, he added, “For the medium and long term, we obviously have to do things to control the deficit,” explicitly embracing tax increases on the rich.

“You’ve got to look to the people who’ve gotten the most gains from the economy over the last 30 years, and who have also gotten the biggest tax reductions,” he said. “It’s not taking from them. It’s simply asking them to do their fair share at a time when the country has to pull together to work through some difficult problems.”

Together, the comments appeared to suggest that Mr. Summers opposed allowing any tax cuts to expire at the end of the year and preferred allowing the cuts on income above $250,000 to expire later. But he was not explicit on the issue, and White House officials denied that Mr. Summers, one of Mr. Obama’s closest economic confidants, had broken with the president.

Mr. Summers released a statement saying: “I fully support President Obama’s position on tax cuts. I have often said and continue to believe that promoting demand is the most critical short run priority for the American economy. Extending the high-income tax cut does little for demand and poses substantial problems of fairness and fiscal prudence.”

Those events mirrored the dispute over Mr. Clinton’s comments barely 12 hours before. In an interview on CNBC, Mr. Clinton appeared to say tax increases and Republican-led spending cuts should be temporarily set aside until the economy regains its footing.

“What I think we need to do is find some way to avoid the fiscal cliff, to avoid doing anything that would contract the economy now, and then deal with what’s necessary in the long term debt-reduction plans as soon as they can, which presumably would be after the election,” he said.

Mr. Clinton’s remarks were likewise vague, and a Clinton spokesman on Tuesday quickly said the former president does not believe tax cuts for the wealthy need be extended.

Regardless of intent, some damage may have been done. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the minority leader, said President Obama extended the Bush tax cuts for two years in December 2010 because of a struggling economy. At 1.9 percent, the growth rate in the first three months of this year was slower than the end of 2010, when the economy grew 2.8 percent.

But Republicans gave no indication they are willing to cut a broad, anti-austerity deal. Representative Kevin McCarthy of California, the House majority whip, said Republicans will not come to the table until they believe they have a White House negotiating partner.

“You need somebody on the other side who wants to make a deal, and the No. 1 way to do that is to put people before politics,” he said. “And this president this year has done nothing but politics.”

View the original article here

AP Interview: Branstad: Debate gaffe hurts Perry (AP)

DES MOINES, Iowa – Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad on Friday said Republican presidential candidate Rick Perry's debate gaffe this week was one of those unfortunate iconic moments, just like former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean's memorable scream was in 2004.

The veteran Republican governor said Perry's inability to remember the name of the third Cabinet department he would eliminate was not a fatal blow, but that the episode served to punctuate doubts about the Texas governor.

"It's not helpful especially in light of the fact that he had had several previous debates where he had not performed well," Branstad told The Associated Press in an interview. "It is kind of comparable to, it was the governor of Vermont, Howard Dean's scream here at caucus night in Iowa."

During a GOP presidential debate Wednesday night in Michigan, Perry couldn't name the third department.

"Commerce, Education and the — what's the third one there? Let's see," he said, before checking his notes and eventually admitting he couldn't remember.

Later in the debate, Perry said Energy was the third department.

But the minute-long video of Perry's stumble spread quickly as he made the rounds of network and cable television news programs to put a lighthearted spin on the situation and dismiss questions about his ability to stay in the race.

Dean, once the poll leader for Iowa's 2004 Democratic presidential caucuses, famously rallied supporters on caucus night after finishing a disappointing third. He shouted the names of state contests ahead, capping it with a red-faced yell.

The circumstances were different but the episodes reinforced doubts about each candidate.

In Dean's case, the concerns were about his demeanor. In Perry's case, his sometimes awkward and wandering debate answers have raised questions about his ability to perform under pressure.

Like Dean, Perry's moment also comes as the he is trying to regain his footing after slipping sharply in the polls.

Branstad said he was unlikely to endorse any of the seven candidates who are campaigning to win the state's Jan. 3 caucuses. He previously had held out the possibility of doing so.

Branstad said strong performances in Iowa were essential for Perry and Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, both of whom have slumped in the polls since August.

He also said former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum "could be the real sleeper in this thing." Santorum last week reached his goal of visiting each of Iowa's 99 counties, a feat made famous by Iowa GOP icons Branstad and U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley. Santorum is the only candidate to invest that much time on retail politics in the state.

Branstad also said it was possible that Mitt Romney could win the caucuses, despite the former Massachusetts governor's less aggressive campaign in Iowa this year than four years ago. Romney recently said he would like to win in Iowa. Doing so would help him build momentum heading into the leadoff primary a week later in New Hampshire, where he is heavily favored.

View the original article here

Republican Debate: 3 Things that Surprised This Democrat (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | As a registered Democratic voter, I've never watched a Republican debate. So it was with trepidation that I tuned in to the Google-sponsored Republican debate on Thursday. The debate went pretty much as expected: Texas Gov. Rick Perry talked about job creation, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich reiterated his belief that "people should not get money for doing nothing" and Ron Paul reminded us all that he basically wants to get rid of the federal government.

But there were three things that stood out for me.

Michelle Bachman changed her tune on Gardasil. Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., in attempting to make Rick Perry look bad, slammed the governor for signing an order that required middle-school girls in Texas to get vaccinated against the human papillomavirus (HPV). Bachmann claimed the vaccine, Gardasil, was linked to mental retardation, a claim which medical experts dismissed as bunk, according to the Associated Press. When asked about her assertion that the vaccine was dangerous, Bachmann said, "I didn't make that claim nor did I make that statement."

Herman Cain wants a national sales tax. His so-called 9-9-9 plan proposes a nine percent business flat tax, a nine percent personal income tax and a nine percent national sales tax, also known as a Value Added Tax (VAT). This is surprising to me because many countries in Europe, Sweden for example, countries that some Republicans might call "socialist," have a VAT.

The crowd booed a U.S. soldier. Openly gay soldier Stephen Hill, who is currently serving in Iraq, asked the potential candidates their feelings on the repeal of the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. Some members of the crowd loudly booed the soldier. Instead of thanking the Hill for his service to our country and reprimanding the crowd for being disrespectful, former senator Rick Santorum answered the question by saying, "Sexual activity has absolutely no place in the military," and that, if given the chance, he would reinstate the policy because it gives gay soldiers some unnamed "special privilege."

Did watching this debate make me want to vote Republican? Absolutely not, but it did show me exactly who President Barack Obama will be up against. The responses to the questions were basically what I expected -- canned, safe and extremely conservative--but it was the moments in between the questions that truly showed what this field of Republican presidential hopefuls are about.

View the original article here

Debt Ceiling Debate Winner Will Win 2012 (ContributorNetwork)

COMMENTARY | The Democrats are playing a dangerous end game on the debt ceiling and the result is a possible win for Barack Obama in the 2012 election. The Republicans have taken a hard line and are willing to let the United States go into default. This is exactly what the Democrats want to happen.

If the United States goes into default, the Republicans will be the scapegoat for the failing economy in the next year and a half before the election. The Democrats will be able to turn the tables and blame the United States devalued credit rating and lower standing in the world economy on the stubborn Democrats.

ABC News posted the anatomy of a debt default and their graphic and story lays the groundwork to make the Republicans look like the bad guys in this battle. The battle over the debt ceiling will become a major talking point in the next three weeks and the focus will be on the Republicans refusal to budge.

Republicans need to learn they have the upper hand. They can send a debt limit approval tied to only cuts, no taxes and send it to the Democrat controlled Senate. If the Senate sends the debt limit approval to the White House with just spending cuts and no taxes, Obama will be responsible for the default and the Republicans will have the edge.

The Republicans have to get a debt limit approval through the House of Representatives and the Senate and on Obama's desk quickly and then his refusal to sign will be the perfect end game for the Republicans in 2012. They will be able to claim victory and Obama go down as the only president to allow the country to go into default.

People struggling to resist claiming bankruptcy will now have an out. The government can default, why can't they? The ramifications have not been thought through. A government default sends a message to the nation and the world. The United States government is in such disarray they cannot honor their obligations.

The House of Representatives has the keys to the car and they can drive the president to the brink with no option but to sign off on the cuts and his ability to expand the government ends in dramatic fashion.

The next three weeks will tell voters if they need to vote out the incumbents or hail them as heroes in the next election. History will happen in the next three weeks. Will it be the end of this country or a new beginning of bipartisan cooperation?

View the original article here

Does Eric Cantor have a conflict of interest in debt ceiling debate? (Daily Caller)

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) could face a resolution brought by House Democrats accusing him of having a conflict of interest in the debate over the debt ceiling, the Huffington Post reported late Friday.

According to the resolution, Cantor’s investment in ProShares Trust Ultrashort 20+ Year Treasury ETF means he could stand to gain if the debt ceiling is not raised. The fund bets against U.S. government bonds, and if the country were to default on its debts, the value of Cantor’s fund could increase. (Rep. Cuellar: Cantor’s withdrawal from budget talks good for Democrats)

The resolution, the Huffington Post writes, says Cantor “may be sabotaging [debt ceiling] negotiations for his own personal gain.” The resolution goes on to say that Cantor has “compromised the dignity and integrity of the Members of the House.”

Cantor’s spokesman, Brad Dayspring doesn’t just say this is wrong. He says it’s the opposite of the truth. Cantor has only about $3,300 invested in the trust in question, while he has more than a quarter million dollars in a congressional pension plan dependent on government bonds.

Dayspring put it this way: “For the conspiracy theorists — they would have to believe that Eric would want to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars to make a few thousands in return.” He called the insinuations made in the resolution “outrageous.”

Cantor recently removed himself from budget negotiations anyway, saying he wouldn’t consider until Democrats addressed tax issues.

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Does Eric Cantor have a conflict of interest in debt ceiling debate?

Even Whoopi Goldberg confused why she hosted Dalai Lama talk

Would you give up the internet? [VIDEO]

Congressional staffer resigns after sending inappropriate tweets

Hard times for old time publishers

View the original article here

Democrats seek debate on bank exposure to state laws - Reuters

* Barney Frank, other Dems seek longer comment period

* Proposal aims to restrict OCC in preempting state laws

* OCC has been criticized for shielding large banks

* BofA, JPMorgan, Wells Fargo among banks the OCC oversees

WASHINGTON, July 1 (Reuters) - Five Democrats are seeking more time for the public to influence a rule laying out when federal regulators can shield large U.S. banks from state consumer financial laws.

The five, including Barney Frank, who co-wrote last year's Dodd-Frank reform legislation, wrote a letter to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. In it, they ask the regulator to reopen the proposal's comment period, which ended June 27.

The proposal, called for in Dodd-Frank, is designed to make it more difficult for the OCC to "preempt" state laws such as those governing predatory lending, mortgage rules and credit cards. [ID:nN25148900]

Critics of the OCC charge that in the run-up to the 2007-2009 financial crisis, the agency was too aggressive in preventing states from enforcing some consumer protection laws, and took an expansive view of its ability to do so under the National Bank Act.

The Democrats said a longer comment period is necessary "in light of the history of the OCC's previous preemption rulemaking, the clear gravity of preemption determinations generally."

The OCC has said it uses its preemption authority to protect national banks from a patchwork of state laws that can be contradictory and difficult to comply with. It has also noted that much of the worst subprime lending activity occurred at institutions outside of the OCC's jurisdiction.

The OCC had no immediate comment about the letter.

Bank of America (BAC.N), JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N) and Wells Fargo (WFC.N) are among the banks the OCC regulates. (Reporting by Karey Wutkowski, editing by Dave Zimmerman)

View the original article here

DNC video lambasts Republican candidates at New Hampshire debate (Daily Caller)

The Democratic National Committee’s “rapid response” team lived up to its name today, with a morning-after video of the Republican debate in New Hampshire.

And nothing makes Republican politicians look dumber than splicing together 30 seconds of footage from a two-hour debate, unless some of footage is taken completely out of context that is.

(No Mitt Romney feeding frenzy; Pawlenty refuses to attack)

“The Republicans met to talk about the most pressing issues facing our country …” begins the video. What follows is quick footage of Herman Cain saying “I do not believe in Sharia law in American courts.” Cain was trying to clarify his previous statements on Muslims and Sharia law. Cain doesn’t help himself by continuing with the fringe claim that Muslims may be trying to hijack entire states.

WATCH:

Next on the hit list is former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty who said, “I support a constitutional amendment to define marriage between a man and woman.” It’s a Republican primary so this answer shouldn’t be too surprising. But it comes after the accusation that the phrase “middle class” was never used. But it would seem Republicans don’t believe in class-ism the way Democrats do. Rick Santorum prefers the phrase “middle of America,” which he used three times. And the issue of lower-middle-class jobs did in fact come up a lot; odd, since there haven’t really been any in a few years.

Pawlenty got hit again with footage of him calling Sarah Palin a “remarkable leader.” Taken in context, however, — she was being compared to Geronimo Joe Biden — that’s not an incredible statement.

Mitt Romney got called out for saying he would repeal “ObamaCare,” though he was defending himself against Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann, who not only had an amazing performance but more surprisingly wasn’t featured in the video, despite being a favorite target of Democrats.

The cruelest — and least honest — swipe came at the expense of Newt Gingrich and his campaign of one.

“But at least one candidate had a vision of the future …” flashed on the screen before Gingrich appeared to be caught giving away the plot of James Bond’s Moonraker.

” … we would today probably have a permanent station on the moon, three or four permanent stations in space, a new generation of lift vehicles.”

What’s lost is the context of the sentence’s previous clause: “If you take all the money we’ve spent at NASA since we landed on the moon and you had applied that money for incentives to the private sector …”

The massive money black hole that is NASA has been well documented for years, while modern-day Howard Hughes are ready to rock and roll with commercial space flights have been grounded thanks to bureaucratic regulations and general lethargy.

Meanwhile, Gary Johnson was spared any ridicule as he was not even allowed at the debate.

Email Jeff Winkler and follow him on Twitter

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

DNC video lambasts Republican candidates at New Hampshire debate

Levin rips Obama on Anthony Weiner response: Are we sure that's not his wiener?

New Mexico senatorial candidate off to a good start

Despite opposition effort, Romney says he lines up with the Tea Party

Why the GOP debates should worry Obama

View the original article here

Democrat ad attacks Republicans ahead of New Hampshire debate (Daily Caller)

As the 2012 Republican presidential candidates meet in New Hampshire tonight to debate who’s more conservative, it appears there will be an uninvited guest – namely, the Democrats.

As the debate plays out, an ad from a liberal health care reform group will continue its second day of heavy airtime in the Boston market. The Medicare ad, from Protect Your Care, attacks the Republican candidates where they could be must vulnerable in the near future. The simple 30-second ad ends with a simple message: “Stop the Republican Plan to Cut Medicare.”

Tim Pawlenty and the other hopefuls are expected to hit Mitt Romney hard over the former Massachusetts governor’s own health care plan. Romney must simultaneously defend his plan while proving his own conservative credentials. It’s the Paul Ryan budget plan, however, that will have every serious contender walking a fine line between praising the idea of the plan and not opening themselves up to Medicare-focused attacks from Democrats and groups like Protect Your Care.

Democrats are concerned enough about other issues — like an unimproved economy — to start attacking all the Republican candidates very, very early in the process. It’s a curious strategy and, as if the debate ad blast wasn’t enough, former White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs will also be in New Hampshire tonight offering a rebuttal of the Republican debate.

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Democrat ad attacks Republicans ahead of New Hampshire debate

BREAKING: Hackers take over MSNBC-related Twitter feed to maliciously spread facts

Gingrich slams Obama's foreign policy in L.A. speech

'Morning Joe' for Huntsman? Scarborough and Brzezinski make the 'centrist' case

After running pizza chain, Cain says he can make foreign policy decisions

View the original article here