Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrats. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 11, 2015

CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION SPARKING BUZZ, BUT ODDS STILL LONG

AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- With Republicans controlling more than half the state legislatures across the country, some want to use that power to push for a federal spending limit through a mechanism unused since George Washington's day.

Their plan: Persuade enough states to call a national constitutional convention so that a federal balanced budget amendment can be added to the Constitution.

It would be a historic move. The United States has not held a constitutional convention since Washington himself led the original proceedings in Philadelphia in 1787.

"Everywhere I'd go at town hall meetings, people would say, `What are we going to do? There's no hope. How do we fix our country?' And the fact is, this gives great hope," said former U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, an outspoken budget hawk and longtime supporter of a federal balanced budget amendment.

There also are risks if the movement succeeds. A convention could expand to take on myriad issues beyond the federal budget, including campaign finance reform and other changes sought by Democrats.

Calling such an assembly would require approval from 34 states. The GOP now controls both legislative chambers in 30.

Convention proposals were introduced or discussed in about three dozen legislatures this year and approved by three of them. Over the past four decades, 27 states have endorsed the idea at one time or another.

"There's definitely people who are very serious about it," said Michael Leachman, director of state fiscal research at the Washington-based nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. "We're seeing these resolutions get debated in state legislatures around a decent portion of the country."

Still, successfully calling a constitutional convention is a longshot.

Unlike other parts of the conservative agenda that have sailed through GOP statehouses, the convention debate is complicated because it involves three separate proposals that have overlapping - but not identical - goals. And even some leading Republicans consider a possible convention too unpredictable to support.

Backers of the idea hope the presidential race will stir more interest. Five of the Republican candidates have spoken favorably about it.

GOP hopefuls Bobby Jindal, Mike Huckabee and John Kasich all have recently endorsed convening a constitutional convention. Rand Paul has said he "wouldn't have a problem" with the states calling one under Article V. Ted Cruz said via Twitter in 2013 that "the possibility grows more and more" for a constitutional convention.

"It's becoming a presidential issue," said Mark Meckler, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots. "Candidates are being asked about it."

Every state except Vermont has a legal requirement for a balanced budget, but Congress does not.
Under Article V of the Constitution, adding an amendment can be done via a two-thirds vote of Congress and then ratification by three-fourths of states, or 38. That's the way all the current constitutional amendments came about, but few could imagine Congress passing a balanced budget amendment.

That leaves a second option: calling a constitutional convention. Two-thirds of the states, or 34, would have to request a national assembly to draft amendments. Any amendments would subsequently have to be ratified by at least 38 states to go into effect.

Three different proposals seeking a constitutional convention have been circulating in statehouses.
The one discussed most often this year was the "Convention of States" plan supported by Coburn and Meckler. It seeks an assembly with an agenda that would include the balanced budget amendment, term limits for offices that include the U.S. Supreme Court and broad caps on congressional taxation authority.
Alabama this year became the fourth state to approve it, and it was discussed in at least 35 legislatures. But the risk that Democratic priorities also could be considered during a constitutional convention was too scary for some, including in Texas, where the proposal died in the state Senate this session after passing the House.

"I was surprised at how strong the fear of a runaway convention was," said state Sen. Paul Bettencourt, a Houston Republican who sponsored the proposal.

A more limited effort, named the Compact for America, is backed by the American Legislative Exchange Council, which provides model legislation for conservative lawmakers. It includes only the balanced budget amendment, which, at least theoretically, could discourage amendments on other topics. So far, it has been passed in Alaska, Georgia, North Dakota and Mississippi.

The third initiative is the oldest and closest to its 34-state goal, but also is the most unpredictable. In May, North Dakota became the 27th approving state. But that group also includes Democratic-leaning states that would like to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision from 2010, which allows corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts during political campaigns.

Also, some states approved the initiative decades ago, when their political composition was much different. That means some of them could rescind their approval if the initiative draws closer to the 34-state threshold.

"There's too many unknowns," said Pat Carlson of the conservative Texas Eagle Forum. "There are people who are far to the left and they are waiting for this. Once the convention is convened, there will be no control over it."

But even if none of the proposals ultimately succeeds, Coburn said, they could scare Congress into action.

"Whether it's the Convention of States, or the compact or the balanced budget amendment, when they get close, Congress is going to be looking over its shoulder," he said. "They'll say, `We'd better get this done or we're going to lose some of our power.'"

Via: AP

Continue Reading...

[VIDEO] O'Malley says Dems 'outrageous' for limiting debates

Former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley continued to rail against the Democratic National Committee Monday for limiting the number of primary debates to six during the 2016 campaign.
Appearing on "Andrea Mitchell Reports," O'Malley blasted the DNC for their "outrageous" decision to cut down on the number of debates from 20 in 2008 to six this cycle.
"My message to the party is this: We're making a big mistake as Democrats if we try to limit debate and have an undemocratic process," O'Malley told host Andrea Mitchell. "There were 24 million people who tuned in to the Republican debate, and there were very few ideas that would serve our nation moving forward that were offered in that debate.
O'Malley says Dems 'outrageous' for limiting debates | Washington Examiner

Appearing on "Andrea Mitchell Reports," O'Malley blasted the DNC for their "outrageous" decision to cut down on the number of debates from 20 in 2008 to six this cycle. (AP Photo) 
"It was like the greatest hits of the 80s and the 90s. What our party has to offer are the actual ideas that will move our country forward that will get wages to go up again instead of down. That will move us to a 100 percent clean energy future, and create 500 million jobs along the way."
"Shame on us as a party if the DNC tries to limit debate and prevents us from being able to put forward a better path for our people that will make the economy work for all of us again," O'Malley said. "So I believe we need more debates — not fewer debates, and I think it's outrageous, actually, that the DNC would try to make this process decidedly undemocratic by telling Iowa and New Hampshire that they can only have one debate before they make a decision."
"This election's too important to cut off debate," O'Malley argued. "People want debate, Andrea. They don't want a coronation."
The former Maryland governor has struggled to gain traction in the 2016 primary thus far. According to the latest RealClearPolitics national polling average, O'Malley pulls only 1.6 percent support. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton continues to lead with 55 percent support, while Sen. Bernie Sanders snags 19 percent. In addition, Vice President Joe Biden, who will likely announce his 2016 intentions in September, is at 12 percent.

Are liberal city centers dying off politically?

It’s a given in American politics that urban centers are essentially Democrat strongholds. There is no point in Republicans or conservatives competing there because you’re simply not going to gain any votes or find any agreement on key policy points. This can be attributed to both economic and demographic factors. The low income urban communities are predominantly composed of minority voters and they stand with the Democrats in numbers which are too daunting to contemplate. The majority of the wealthy tend toward the limosene liberal crowd who can afford destructive taxes and have the leisure time available to dictate proper life choices to others no matter how they live their own lives. (Be sure to take a limo or a private jet to your next climate change conference.)
But is this changing? Joel Kotkin at Real Clear Politics looks at the numbers and finds that while urban population centers are still large, they are not growing in relation to the exurbs and rural areas, and they’re also not turning out to vote in the same numbers as they did in the heyday of the Democrats.
This urban economy has created many of the most unequal places  in the country. At the top are the rich and super-affluent who have rediscovered the blessings of urbanity, followed by a large cadre of young and middle-aged professionals, many of them childless. Often ignored, except after sensationalized police shootings, is a vast impoverished class that has become ever-more concentrated in particular neighborhoods. During the first decade of the current millennium, neighborhoods with entrenchedurban poverty actually grew, increasing in numbers from 1,100 to 3,100. In population, they grew from 2 million to 4 million.Some 80 percent of all population growth in American cities, since 2000, notes demographerWendell Cox, came from these poorer people, many of them recent immigrants.
Such social imbalances are not, as is the favored term among the trendy, sustainable. We appear to be creating the conditions for a new wave of violent crime on a scale not seen since the early 1990s. Along with poverty,public disorderlinessgang activityhomelessness and homicides are on the rise in many American core cities, including Baltimore,  Milwaukee, Los Angeles and New York. Racial tensions, particularly with the police, have worsened. So even as left-leaning politicians try to rein in police, recent IRS data in Chicago reveals, the middle class appears to once again be leaving for suburban and other locales.
When Democrats begin looking at these types of numbers in a serious fashion they must be asking a question which conservatives have been pondering for some time. Who has been running things in the cities for decades now? The Democrats. And how’s that working out for you? Crime rates in the cities have been – and remain – epic. You can try to blame vast social conflict on the police if you like, but the fact is that the police go where the crime is. The social infrastructure in so many large cities has simply collapsed and it’s all taken place on the watch of the liberal Democrats who rule the roost. They whip up their voters into a frenzy every election cycle, warning of the dangers of the Republicans who hold no power over their lives, but it is under their leadership that you saw the current mess develop.
On the upper end of the scale, particularly in places like New York City, there is a jarring contrast which is hard for the Democrat base to ignore. How do you talk about income inequality and the evils of the fat cats when it’s those same fat cats financing the election of the same Democrats over and over again? Isn’t there a bit of a disconnect there?
Looking at the numbers in that article I have have to wonder if Barack Obama – by virtue of being able to generate racial empathy – might be the last Democrat who will turn out large numbers of voters in the cities. What does Hillary have to offer them which is any different than the policies which have seen New York’s murder rate skyrocket once again and Baltimore going up in flames?

Monday, August 10, 2015

IRAN DEAL: LEFT’S PLAN TO ‘ASTROTURF’ TOWN HALL MEETINGS (FULL SCHEDULE)

Iran peace t-shirt (Adelle Nazarian / Breitbart News)

Several left-wing groups have united in an “Astroturf” campaign to create a false impression of public support for the Iran deal at town hall meetings across the nation.

The effort, called “60 Days to Stop a War,” is being coordinated by MoveOn.org, an anti-war group, the National Iranian American Council, a pro-Iran lobby group; Daily Kos, a left-wing blog site; and other left-wing groups.
As in the Obamacare effort in 2009, the apparent goal of “60 Days” is to create a media sensation that can drown out the American public’s overwhelming opposition.
A statement on the “60 Days” website declares:
Republicans are trying to start a war with Iran by rejecting the historic deal announced by the U.S., Iran and five other world powers that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Republicans can’t start their war without votes from Democrats…
Experts agree that without this agreement, we could face a new war in the Middle East. We have 60 days to defend diplomacy and stop a war. Find a town hall event with your member of Congress, and let them know you want diplomacy, not war.
Some of the members of Congress targeted by the 60 Days effort, such as 
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA)
65%
, are likely opponents of the Iran deal. The goal of the campaign is to create media attention, not to switch votes.

A list of the events, in chronological order, follows. All times local.
1. 
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)
8%
 (D-WA) – Mon., Aug. 10, 2:30 p.m. – Wilsonville Public Library, 8200 Southwest Wilsonville Road, Wilsonville, OR 97070

2. 
Rep. Diane Black (R-TN)
66%
 – Mon., Aug. 10, 6:00 p.m. – Cannon County Courthouse, 200 West Main St., Woodbury, TN 37190 United States

3. 
Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC)
48%
 – Mon., Aug. 10, 6:30 p.m. – Marvin Ridge High School, 2825 Crane Road, Waxhaw, NC 28173 United States

4. 
Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL)
15%
 – Mon., Aug. 10, 7:00 p.m. – Council Chambers, 425 Hillside Avenue, Hillside, IL 60162 United States

5. 
Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC)
61%
 – Tues., Aug. 11, 10:00 a.m. – Joe’s Grill, 306 Russell Street, Darlington, SC 29532 United States

6. 
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL)
39%
 – Tues., Aug. 11, 1:00 p.m. – Shawneetown City Hall, 330 North Lincoln Boulevard East, Shawneetown, IL 62984 -RSVP by phone at (618) 252-8271 United States

7. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) – Tues., Aug. 11, 2:30 p.m., Grass Valley City Council Chambers, 125 East Main Street, Grass Valley, CA 95945 United States
8. 
Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY)
49%
 – Tues., Aug. 11, 5:30 p.m. – Fiesta Brava Mexican Restaurant, 100 Tanglewood Drive, Taylorsville, KY 40071 United States

9. Rep. Diane Black (R-TN) – Tues., Aug. 11, 5:30 p.m. -Putnam County Courthouse, 300 East Spring Street, Cookeville, TN 38501 United States
10. 
Rep. Marc Veasey (D-TX)
18%
 – Tues., Aug. 11, 6:00 p.m. – Hampton-Illinois Branch Library, 2951 South Hampton Rd., Dallas, TX 75224 United States

11. Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA) – Tues., Aug. 11, 6:00 p.m. – Colfax City Council Chambers, 33 South Main Street  Colfax, CA 95713 United States
12. Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC) – Tues., Aug. 11, 6:30 p.m. – Charles Mack Citizen Center, 215 North Main Street, Mooresville, NC 28115 United States
13. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-KY) – Wed., Aug. 12, 7:30 a.m. – Paula’s Hot Biscuit, 311 West Water Street, Hodgenville, KY 42748 United States
14. Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC) – Wed., Aug. 12, 9:00 a.m. – Magnolia on Main, 224 East Main Street, Bennettsville, SC 29512 United States

15. 
Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)
22%
 – Wed., Aug. 12, 9:00 a.m. – Spring Street Post Office, 1310 Pennsylvania Ave, Brooklyn – Canarsie, NY 11239 United States

16. 
Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ)
88%
 – Wed., Aug. 12, 10:30 a.m. – Location TBD

17. Rep. Tom Rice (R-SC) – Wed., Aug. 12, 11:30 a.m. – The Charcoal Grill, 107 North 1st Avenue, Dillon, SC 29536 United States
18. Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-NC) – Wed., Aug. 12, 6:30 p.m. – Cornelius Town Hall, 21445 Catawba Avenue, Cornelius, NC 28031 United States
19. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) – Thurs., Aug. 13, 9:30 a.m. – Breese City Hall, 500 North 1st Street, Breese, IL 62230 United States
20. 
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R-KS)
60%
 – Thurs., Aug. 13, 10:30 a.m. – District Office, 3550 SW 5th Street, Topeka, KS 66606 United States – RSVP by phone at (618) 288-7190


Sunday, August 9, 2015

2016 race takes us toward banana republic status

Which of these Republicans can win swing states like Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin? 
John Minchillo AP

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article30436227.html#storylink=cpy

The GOP has won the popular vote only once in the six presidential elections since 1992. That occurred in 2004 when President George W. Bush was reelected with a scant 51 percent of the vote over Democrat, John Kerry. Yes, Bush also won in 2000, but he lost the popular vote in an election that was decided by the Supreme Court. Other than 2004, the Republican nominee has not won more than 47 percent of the popular vote. Nothing suggests 2016 will be any different.
The Democrats have a significant structural advantage in amassing the 270 electoral votes it takes to win. Over the past six elections the Democrats have won 18 states and the District of Columbia every time, netting them 240 electoral votes. The Republicans have been able to carry only 13 states every time. Those states netted them a paltry 102 electoral votes.
In order to break this pattern the Republicans must nominate a candidate who can carry some of the states that routinely vote Democratic, and they need to be states with more than a trivial number of electoral votes. The obvious targets are in the Rust Belt – Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin, which together have 46 electoral votes. That’s more than enough to change the outcome of the presidential election. A Republican who can’t win in one or more of these states will be another loser. And that rules out virtually all of the occupants in the current GOP Presidential Clown Car.

GOP thriving

However, in May Sean Trende and David Byler published an excellent analysis of party strength in Real Clear Politics, and it shows that the GOP is the strongest it has been in decades in Congress and at the state level. Let’s examine this strange, but real, disconnect between a party that can’t win the White House, while reigning supreme everywhere else.
Trende and Byler’s analysis shows the 54 Senate seats the Republicans now control is their second-best showing since 1928. Their 247 House seats is the best since 1928. There are 31 Republican governors, and the GOP controls both houses of the legislature in 30 states.
From 1954 until 1994 the GOP was a permanent minority in the House of Representatives. The picture was almost as bleak in the Senate. During most of that time a Republican was president. And the government worked. The American people wanted the two parties to negotiate with one another to reach compromises, which is exactly what they did.

Health care revolt

In 1994 everything changed. The Republicans came out of the wilderness. They gained 54 House seats and eight Senate seats. And in 2010 and 2014 they struck again, first retaking the House and then the Senate. Why? Hillarycare and Obamacare. Virulent opposition to Hillarycare triggered the Gingrich Revolution in 1994, and Obamacare reignited intense voter opposition to the president’s health program and the partisan manner by which the Democrats rammed it through.
Many of these newly elected Republicans are radicals, unwilling to compromise. Both sides bear major responsibility for paralyzing the federal government. Neither side will back down. Trading in Hillary for Obama next year is a certain recipe for more of the same.
Both parties deserve the public’s contempt. Yet voters continue to perpetuate the impasse. Banana republic, here we come.
Goldman worked on Capitol Hill and at the National Institutes of Health. He has retired to Flat Rock and can be reached at tks12no12@gmail.com.

Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article30436227.html#storylink=cpy





Read more here: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article30436227.html#storylink=cpy

The Republican-Democrat Switcheroo

It’s now official. When it comes to choosing presidential nominees, the Republican Party has become the Democratic Party—and Democrats have turned into Republicans. Cleveland, Ohio, was the place and August 6, 2015 was the date. The unruly Republican field was so multitudinous it had to be broken into double sessions. Meanwhile, the Democratic field essentially consists of one person, a candidate so confident that she spent GOP debate night in Hollywood posing for selfies with Kim Kardashian.
If Will Rogers were still alive, he’d have to reverse his famous quip about not belonging to an organized political party because he was a Democrat. Heading into 2016, Democrats are so squared away they have a nominee-in-waiting whom no prominent Democrat will lay a glove on. The Clintons are headlining the age of Learjet liberalism while Republicans mud-wrestle with The Donald.
Democrats have stopped defending Bill and Hillary Clinton. They just point to her poll numbers, and shrug. Mock federal law by establishing a secret email system? So what? Make Richard Nixon look like a piker by shredding 30,000 of those emails instead of erasing 18 minutes of tape? Who cares? Rake in $100 million in speaking fees from corporate interests and sketchy foreign donors? It’s for a good cause!
Sure, Sen. Bernie Sanders is drawing crowds, but the old Vermont socialist doesn’t dare criticize the front-runner. Neither will former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, another declared Democratic presidential “candidate.” It evokes the GOP’s “11th commandment” popularized by Ronald Reagan: “Though shalt speak no ill of a fellow Republican.” Only this time, it’s Democrats.
The maxim was coined five decades ago by former California Republican Party chairman Gaylord Parkinson, mainly as a way of assisting Reagan’s nascent gubernatorial campaign. Over the years it was honored mostly in the breach by Republicans. Adhering to it in a crowd of 17 candidates is impossible.
Most of them did their best, however. Donald Trump refrained, by and large, from calling his colleagues “stupid” or “losers” Thursday night—although Fox News anchorwoman Megyn Kelly was more than happy to fill the void.
“You've called women fat pigs, dogs, slobs, disgusting animals,” Kelly said to Trump. “Your Twitter account has several…” Trump then interrupted her to ad-lib, “Only Rosie O'Donnell.” It was a quip that made some in the crowd laugh and others squirm nervously, which nicely sums up the main reaction to the loose-lipped billionaire.
He’s still leading the Republican field in the polls, but with 16 other candidates and Trump’s celebrity status, that’s not quite the achievement gleeful Democrats make it out to be. Whatever his ceiling of support might be, Trump is getting close to it. Speaking of which, it shouldn’t have been that easy to get The Donald to admit he’s not really a Republican, which Fox co-host Brett Baier did with the very first debate question.
Who there on the stage, Baier asked, would not agree to support the eventual Republican nominee? What he was getting at was the possibility of a third party campaign by Trump, a gambit that presumably would ensure a Hillary Clinton victory. Trump promptly raised his hand. Give him points for candor, but this is not what a Republican usually says in that situation. It so irritated Sen. Rand Paul—a man who actually would belong to a third party if the Libertarians were a viable national political entity—that he blurted out that Trump epitomized what’s wrong with American politics: “He buys and sells politicians of all stripes.”
When the question of such double dealing arose later, Trump’s answer was intellectually incoherent, if revealing. Health care is a mess because the politicians are bought and paid for by lobbyists, said the populist Donald Trump. A sentence or two later, Trump the oligarch was boasting about buying those same politicians.
But if Trump has peaked—and that’s a big “if”—who came out of Cleveland stronger than they entered? And what’s next for the other candidates? The most immediate worry for the men who participated in main debate is that Carly Fiorina, who starred in the “kids’ table” debate earlier in the day, seems poised to take somebody’s place in the Top 10. It might be Rand Paul’s; it could be Chris Christie’s or John Kasich’s.
Although she has little political experience outside her losing 2010 Senate campaign to Barbara Boxer, Fiorina was simultaneously the toughest on Trump while making the most articulate and direct appeal to his supporters. “Whatever the issue, whatever the cause, whatever festering problem you hoped would be resolved, the political class has failed you,” she said.
With nearly as many contestants as in “The Hunger Games,” certain pairings are inevitable, along with private feuds and side rivalries. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has already ruminated aloud about a Walker-Rubio ticket (or a Rubio-Walker ticket), but a discerning Thursday viewer also might imagine a Jeb Bush-John Kasich pairing, an alliance that would elevate within conservatism concern for the poor. The other possibility is an exacta ticket that you’d announce at the racetrack betting window this way: “All with Fiorina.”  
The takeaway is that 17 is too large a number. There weren’t this many people deciding presidential nominations in the old smoke-filled rooms of lore, let alone that many contenders. Literally.
Heading into the 1920 Republican convention in Chicago, the GOP nomination was wide open. On the first ballot 12 Republicans attracted support, the top three being Gen. Leonard Wood, Illinois Gov. Frank O. Lowden and California Sen. Hiram Johnson.
Ohio party boss Harry Daugherty confided to reporters that it would be a deadlocked convention between the top two, and that he planned to break the impasse by offering home state favorite Warren G. Harding as the compromise candidate. “After the other candidates have gone their limit, some 12 or 15 men, worn out and bleary-eyed for lack of sleep, will sit down about two o'clock in the morning, around a table in a smoke-filled room in some hotel and decide the nomination,” he said. “When that time comes, Harding will be selected.”
It happened just as Daugherty predicted. For Republicans, this meant good news and bad. The good news was that they won in November. The bad news was that, in turning to someone they didn’t really know well, GOP bosses ended up choosing a guy who was a scandal machine once in the White House. It’s not a stretch to say, with the release of Warren Harding’s recent love letters to a mistress, that he’s still generating scandals a century later.
What I’m suggesting is that the voters will eventually sort this out, and that their track record is at least as good as that of the wise guys. Also that a political party, Republican or Democrat, which ignores the whiff of scandal may come eventually to regret it, even if they win the next election.
Carl M. Cannon is the Washington Bureau Chief for RealClearPolitics. Reach him on Twitter @CarlCannon.


Via: Real Clear Politics

Popular Posts