Why, yes… yes he is.
House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, who was considered the front-runner to replace John Boehner, stunned his Republican colleagues Thursday by abruptly withdrawing from the race, throwing the leadership battle into chaos.
McCarthy’s decision, announced moments before Republicans were set to nominate their candidate, will postpone the vote for speaker. McCarthy had been running against Reps. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, and Daniel Webster, R-Fla., before he dropped out, and it’s unclear whether other candidates will now step forward.
While McCarthy, R-Calif., faced vocal opposition from some conservative members and groups, he was thought to have more than enough support to win the party’s nomination in the vote initially set for Thursday. Fox News is told McCarthy, in revealing his choice, simply told colleagues it was not his time.
His withdrawal rattled fellow lawmakers, particularly allies in leadership. But addressing reporters afterward, McCarthy said he thinks the party needs a “fresh face.”
“If we are going to unite and be strong, we need a new face to help do that,” McCarthy said. “We’ve got to be 100 percent united.”
He said he will stay on as majority leader.
Chaffetz, speaking shortly afterward, said McCarthy’s withdrawal was “absolutely stunning.” Chaffetz said he would remain in the race. “I really do believe it is time for a fresh start,” he said.
Practically speaking, Republicans’ overriding interest is to find a candidate who can muster an absolute majority on the House floor in a full chamber vote, originally set for Oct. 29. While McCarthy was likely to easily win the nomination, it was unclear whether he could muster a majority – of roughly 218 members – once lawmakers from both parties vote for speaker.
McCarthy gave no indication of dropping out earlier in the day. “It’s going to go great,” McCarthy said Thursday morning. But he later suggested he was concerned he’d only be able to win narrowly in a floor vote later this month.
Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said McCarthy actually felt he couldn’t reach 218. Still, he said McCarthy’s backing will be the “most important endorsement” for whoever seeks the post.
Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., the party’s vice presidential nominee in 2012, swiftly put out a statement saying he would not run, while saying he’s “disappointed” McCarthy dropped out.
Conservative groups, meanwhile, cheered the decision. FreedomWorks CEO Adam Brandon said in a statement that McCarthy “dropped out of the Speaker race because of the House Freedom Caucus and grassroots pressure… This is a huge win for conservatives who want to see real change in Washington, not the same go along get along ways of Washington.”
He was referring in part to a decision Wednesday by the conservative House Freedom Caucus – with its 30-40 members – to back Webster as a bloc.
The speaker’s race already has seen several curveballs since Boehner suddenly announced his retirement at the end of the month and McCarthy swiftly positioned himself as the presumptive next in line.
Shortly after announcing his candidacy, McCarthy was seen to stumble in a Fox News interview where he appeared to link Hillary Clinton’s dropping poll numbers to the congressional Benghazi committee. His comments fueled Democratic charges that the committee is merely political, which GOP leaders deny.
Amid the backlash over McCarthy’s Benghazi remarks, Chaffetz entered the leadership race over the weekend.
Republicans have nearly 250 members in the House and on paper have the numbers to win against the Democrats’ nominee, likely Nancy Pelosi. But if the winning Republican nomineecomes out with a tally short of 218, he or she will have to spend the next several weeks trying to rally support to get to that number.
In a curious development, Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., also sent a letter to House Republican Conference Chairwoman Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R-Wash., urging a full vetting of all leadership candidates to avoid a repeat of 1998, when the conference selected then-Rep. Bob Livingston in November to succeed outgoing House Speaker Newt Gingrich. It then emerged Livingston had been conducting an affair. Jones asked that any candidate who has committed “misdeeds” withdraw.
Asked by FoxNews.com to elaborate, Jones said he doesn’t “know anything” specific about any of the candidates, but, “We need to be able to say without reservation that ‘I have nothing in my background that six months from now could be exposed to the detriment of the House of Representatives.'” He said he wants to make sure the candidates have “no skeletons.”
Carly Fiorina is surging right now in the GOP Presidential primary and it’s easy to see why many conservatives like her. She’s had a couple of strong debate performances where she’s tossed out good lines, she’s the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business and she’s portraying herself as an “outsider” in a year when conservatives are justifiably sick of politicians.
Let me paint a different picture of Carly Fiorina and explain why other than Jeb Bush, she’s the candidate I’d least like to see get the nomination. Incidentally, that is really saying something given that I own http://notjebbush.com and the only reason I haven’t bothered to launch it is that Jeb has been so off-putting that watching him speak is like a commercial for “Not Jeb Bush.” Jeb is like the weird, annoying kid in school that no one would ever talk to if he didn’t have a pool. (PS: I’m leaving out Lindsey Graham here because I’m not sure anyone other than his mother will vote for him and I wouldn’t be entirely shocked if even she votes for Walker, Paul or Jindal instead).
First of all, it’s worth noting that Fiorina may have been the first woman to lead a Fortune 50 business, but she turned out to be just as bad at it as Barack Obama has been at running the country. Despite the spin she tries to put in, Carly Fiorina was a disaster for Hewlett Packard.
Fiorina’s story is that she stormed into HP, turned the company around and was unceremoniously fired because she challenged the status quo. In actuality, she insisted on a controversial merger with Compaq, got her way and it decimated the company. Fiorina loves to talk about HP’s increase in raw numbers, but if two large computer companies merge, it’s almost a given that the revenue and the number of patents produced by both companies combined are going to increase. What didn’t increase was HP’s stock price. It dropped from $55 a share when Fiorina took over to a little less than $20 a share under her leadership. There is a reason Fiorina shows up on lists of the Worst CEOs Of All Time (See here, here, here, and here among others) and it’s not because the whole business world is engaged in some kind of conspiracy to portray her as an incompetent.
Let me also add that it’s not fair that Democrats will attack her for firing 30,000 workers because unfortunately, that just comes with the territory when you’re a CEO sometimes. However, if you think it wouldn’t be incredibly effective to point out that Fiorina fired 30,000 workers, tanked the price of the company’s stock, damaged Hewlett Packard so badly that it has yet to recover and STILL walked away with 100 million dollars for being one of the worst CEOs of all time, you’re kidding yourself. For all of his flaws, Mitt Romney was a gifted businessman and the Democrats managed to falsely portray him as a heartless, greedy monster for doing far less than that at Bain Capital.
If Carly Fiorina were to say that she’d run America like she ran Hewlett Packard, it could be taken as a direct threat against the country. So, what else does she have to offer as a candidate?
Oh, right! She’s supposedly a grassroots conservative outsider! Yeah, well about that…
Fiorina has run for office before. During the Tea Party tidal wave of 2010, there seemed to be an outside chance that Republicans might be able to knock off Barbra Boxer in California. Granted, it’s California, so it was always going to be a heavy lift, but after Scott Brown had won earlier in the year in Massachusetts, it didn’t seem impossible that a Republican could pull it off.
So, as we have often seen in these last few years, a conservative grassroots candidate squared off with a moderate candidate backed by the establishment. The grassroots conservative candidate was Chuck DeVore and the establishment candidate was Carly Fiorina. Almost every big name conservative except for Sarah Palin lined up behind DeVore (and I love Sarah, but if Fiorina had been a man, there’s not a chance in the world she would have gotten that endorsement. That’s why Sarah had to deal with a big backlash from her own fans over backing Fiorina). On the other hand, the NRSC, John McCain and Lindsey Graham were all supporting Fiorina. Interesting question: When have John McCain, Lindsey Graham and the NRSC EVER backed a conservative candidate over a moderate in a competitive race? Yes, that’s right; they don’t do that. Ever.
After beating DeVore by outspending him more than 3-to1, Fiorina went toe-to-toe with charisma-free Senator Barbara Boxer and got her brains beaten in. Surprise, surprise – Fiorina’s disastrous run at Hewlett Packard turned out to be an anchor around her neck and the fact that she was such a terrible politician that she signed off on bizarre garbage like the Demon Sheep ad (IT APPEARS at 2:26) certainly didn’t help. In a year when Republicans picked up 6 Senate seats, Boxer waltzed to a 10 point victory over Fiorina.
So, Fiorina’s a failed CEO and it would be more accurate to call her an “establishment favorite” than an outsider, but at least she’s a hardcore conservative, right? Well… not so much. Here’s Redstate on Carly Fiorina back in 2010.
From her praise of Jesse Jackson, to her playing the race and gender cards against DeVore, to her support for the Wall Street bailouts, to her qualified support for the Obama stimulus, to her past support for taxation of sales on the Internet, to her waffling on immigration, to her support for Sonia Sotomayor, to her Master’s thesis advocating greater federal control of local education, to her past support for weakening California’s Proposition 13, to her statement to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board that Roe v. Wade is “a decided issue,” Carly Fiorina’s oft-repeated claim to be a “lifelong conservative” was only plausible in the universe of NRSC staffers who recruited her in the first place.
…She endorsed Federal funding of embryonic stem-cell research for “extra” embyros.
She endorsed the California DREAM Act, which grants in-state tuition to illegal immigrants.
She refused to endorse California’s Proposition 23, which suspends the job-killing AB 32 climate-change law.
Fiorina also strongly supported Marco Rubio’s amnesty plan that even he claims not to back anymore, endorsed cap & trade and attacked Ted Cruz for being willing to shut down the government to stop Obamacare.
How do you trust Fiorina on immigration, small government issues, taxes, pro-life issues, global warming or to even try to kill Obamacare after that?
None of this means Carly Fiorina is a bad person, a liberal, a stalking horse or anything else. If you like Carly Fiorina, support her, but at least know what you’re really getting. If you’re backing Carly Fiorina, you’re backing a 0-1, establishment moderate who was an epic failure at the one thing that is supposed to qualify her for the presidency. On the other hand, Fiorina does seem to be pretty good at debating. Of course, if you’re in the market for a charismatic candidate who’s relatively moderate, Chris Christie or Mike Huckabee would seem to be a much better choice, but opinions vary.
Although it’s very difficult to predict what’s going to happen in a primary season as crazy as this one has been, the difference between what people THINK Fiorina is and what she ACTUALLY is, is so great that we can hazard one guess: Carly Fiorina is going to follow the 2012 pattern. People will initially get excited about her, find out what her record really looks like and then she’ll quickly implode.
Remember 2012, when the most vulnerable issue for Democrats was the overwhelmingly unpopular imposition of ObamaCare? The Establishment stuck Republicans with Mitt Romney, who couldn’t use the issue because he was responsible for imposing ObamaCare’s prototype on Massachusetts.
Since it looks like Obama will keep Shrillary out of jail, she remains the Democrat frontrunner for 2016. Her most vulnerable point is her illegal use of a private email server for top secret communications, presumably to cover her influence peddling activities. When the server was subpoenaed by Congress, she tried to wipe it – an arrogant crime that would land you or me in federal prison for some time.
Now the Establishment is using the media to hype Carly Fiorina. Here is what she says about Shrillary’s server issues:
Fiorina said that it’s “absolutely crystal clear” that Clinton broke the rules and that she’s trying cover it up.
She pointed out that Clinton had a “server in her basement” for years, then decided to “wipe it clean” two years after leaving the State Department and before her presidential run.
But it is alleged that Fiorina has server issues too:
My name is Charles Nielsen and I was an employee with HP from 1/2000 until 8/2001. I worked in the Boise, Idaho Data Center. I was the sole Customer Engineer allowed to work on Carly’s Private Server. It was kept under lock and key and I was the only engineer allowed to work on it under the direct supervision of the Data Center Manager; I was new to the company and was used as a dupe. In March of 2001, just before Carly Fiorina had taken control of HP from Walter Hewlett, I was asked to remove the 5 hard drives from her personal server and physically destroy them with a hammer. I asked why I would destroy hard drives that at the time were worth over $15k apiece and I was told because she said so. Shortly after destroying all evidence of her conspiracy to take over the company she removed Walter Hewlett from the board of directors and made off with approximately $500 million dollars from the company with the rest of the board of directors ($100 million for Carly personally). All of her emails and all working documents were destroyed. I have kept my silence until now when I find it highly offensive that after laying off close to 30k workers and sending stock prices into the gutter ( $55 a share when Fiorina took over to a little less than $20 a share under her leadership) she is pretending she would never behave like Hillary has. Carly Fiorina is as corrupt as they come.
It would be nice for the mainstream media to use its resources to vet this guy so we know how seriously to take his allegations. But as we learned from the rise of Obama, vetting is not something the media does anymore. It digs up dirt on people it wants to destroy, and covers for those it wants to advance.
Right now it wants to advance Fiorino, I mean Fiorina – and not because she can win. Her record in both the business and political worlds consists of one failure precariously balanced atop another. In a general election the whole mess would collapse. That’s not a bug; it’s a feature.
Rush Limbaugh explains why the media has been hyping Fiorina and hiding her record:
“Because they want to get rid of Trump,” Limbaugh said…
“Look, this is very, very important for everybody to understand. And the reason it’s very, very important is this is how they choose our nominees for us…
“[I]t’s not that they love Carly Fiorina. They love what supporting her now might enable them to accomplish, and that is get rid of a Republican who can win.”
Romney could have beaten Obama in 2008. But mysteriously he was surpassed that year by the worst candidate the GOP could come up with, a sellout universally hated by the conservative base, John McCain.
Like the designated loser McCain, Fiorina is a tool the media will discard when she has served her usefulness.
When Republicans un-apologetically embrace conservatism with the time-proven Reagan-Bush Sr. approach, they win by landslides. It happens every time. When they “reach across the aisle” and vote like Democrats on issue-after-issue with the failed Dole-McCain-Romney approach, our right-of-center electorate doesn’t show up and they always lose.
The following is a list of Carly Fiorina’s liberal RINO policy positions and red flags from her background:
-In September of 2010, she repeated the left’s fraudulent “consensus of experts” fallacy on global warming. She also refused to take a stand against one of California’s most extreme job-killing environmental measures, endorsed man-made global warming in 2014, and supported the left’s economically-suicidal “Cap-and-Trade” insanity in 2008.
-In September of 2010, she supported the Dream Act (amnesty for children of illegal immigrants). She avoids the question on overall amnesty, and in May of 2010, smeared those seeking to enforce our laws as racists.
-In 2010, she praised Obama’s “Race to the Top” program as well as “No Child Left Behind.” And in 1989, she wrote this in her doctoral dissertation for the Massachusetts Institute of Technology:
“Where I began as a proponent of ‘States’ Rights’ in education, I have ended by believing that we will never meet our own expectations of public education unless the federal government is willing to play a consistent, long-term role; unless education truly becomes a matter of national policy, not just a matter of national rhetoric.”
-In 2003, she said, “In the past 40 years, there are very few people who have used their talent along lines of excellence to achieve more things for more people in more places than Reverend Jackson. And we are all better off for his leadership.” She has an extensive record of praising and supporting this sleazy shakedown artist and his bogus, race-baiting extortion schemes.
-In April of 2010, she said that Roe vs. Wade was a “settled issue,” and confirmed that she would not rule out a Supreme Court nominee over their position on abortion. Republicans closest to her describe her as “pro-choice.”
-In August of 2010, she stated that she supports allowing homosexuals in the military. She opposes a constitutional amendment to reverse the Supreme Court’s blatantly illegal invention of federal marriage rights for homosexuals (at the expense of actual constitutional rights like state sovereignty and free religious exercise).
-In May of 2014 and February of 2015, she perpetuated the left’s debunked myth of women getting paid less than men for the same work. She also routinely promotes her gender as a reason to vote for her.
-In 2008, she was John McCain’s economic adviser as he supported the TARP bailout, the auto bailout, a mortgage bailout, and the the AIG bailout. She is also on the record supporting the bank bailouts before she was against them.
-In April of 2009, she supported Obama’s stimulus program, before she was against it.
-In November of 2009, she stated that she would have voted to confirm racist, anti-gun gender fanatic Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.
-In 2000, she supported an Internet sales tax, before she was against it.
-In January of 2010, she revealed her radical feminist intolerance for equal opportunity: “I like to remind people that women are not a constituency – women are a majority. Women are the majority of voters and we will never have a truly representative democracy unless women make up half, at least, of our elected representatives.”
-In 2010, she was endorsed by the PAC of far left RINO John McCain.
With Missouri Republicans gearing up to vote on a veto override Wednesday to ban mandatory union dues, six of their union-backed colleagues are all who stand in their way.
House Bill 116 was vetoed by Democratic Gov. Jay Nixon back in June. The measure would have outlawed mandatory union dues or fees in the state. With seven Republicans opposed to the bill, it is unlikely supporters will be able to override the veto. All but one of the Republicans opposed are heavily endorsed by organized labor.
“All but one received significant support from unions and all representative districts have a union presence,” the Center for Worker Freedom (CWF) noted in an article. “These representatives need to put their own interests to the side and vote to give their citizens’ the freedom they deserve.”The contributors listed include the Teamsters Local 688, the Missouri State Teachers Association (MSTA), Missouri AFL-CIO, Boilermakers Local 27 and the local chapter of the United Brotherhood Of Carpenters among others.
“Missouri unions are working against job creators and those who would spur the state’s economy by fighting right to work as part of a far left, liberal agenda that supports groups like Planned Parenthood and the Sierra Club,” Jeff Bechdel, of Missouri Rising, told The Daily Caller News Foundation in a statement. “On both counts, these unions are working against what’s best for Missourians.”
Missouri Rising, a nonprofit affiliate of the Republican super PAC, American Rising, also released a video. The video criticized Missouri union bosses for attempting to block the measure.
CWF found each Republican opposed has received several thousand dollars in union contributions. Some much higher. According to National Institute on Money in State Politics, Ruth has received $10,328 from various public sector unions, Black has accepted over $20,000 from general trade unions alone and Sommer has received over $11,000.
“Our endorsements are based on their views of educational issues,” Mike Wood, director of governmental relations for MSTA, told TheDCNF. “We don’t have a dog in the fight.”
Wood also noted MSTA isn’t technically a union. As an association they engage in union activities like collective bargaining but have a wider scope of responsibilities. MSTA has, he argued, contributed to those lawmakers that share a similar view on education. Meaning policies like right-to-work aren’t a factor.
The Boilermakers also noted it’s about which lawmakers they already share common ground with. A representative for the union told TheDCNF it doesn’t donate to influence lawmakers.
Nixon has also been under suspicion for union contributions as well. A week after the veto, the governor received a $50,000 campaign contribution from the United Automobile Workers (UAW). Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder has since urged Nixon to return the money. Nixon has defended his decision to veto the measure, arguing the policy is bad for workers.
“This extreme measure would take our state backward, squeeze the middle-class, lower wages for Missouri families, and subject businesses to criminal and unlimited civil liability,” Nixon declared in a statement from June. “Right-to-Work is wrong for Missouri, it’s wrong for the middle-class – and it must never become the law of the Show-Me State.”
The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), however, has stated in a recent report the policy will benefit state residents. The report, titled, “Why Right to Work is Right for Missouri” estimated potential income loss associated with the state not having the policy between 1977 and 2012.
“In states where people have choice over whether to join a labor union or not, economic growth and personal income are demonstrably higher,” Trey Kovacs, a policy analyst for CEI, noted in a statement. “Missourians deserve the right to decide for themselves whether labor unions are meeting their needs.”
The seven Republicans opposed to the measure did not respond to a request for comment from TheDCNF.
The policy, also known as right-to-work, is usually opposed by unions. The union funded Republican opposition includes Kathie Conway, Kevin Corlew, Bart Korman, Becky Ruth, Linda Black and Chrissy Sommer. Rep. Bill Kidd is the only Republican expected to vote against the override that does not receive support from labor unions.
In yet another capitulation to the liberal left, GOP establishmentarian Mitch McConnell says they’re not even gonna try to defund Planned Parenthood.
Linking the defunding of Planned Parenthood to a government funding bill is “an exercise in futility,” according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.
The Kentucky Republican lawmaker, in an interview with Politico Friday, says he’ll support instead a plan to fund the government into December with no conditions.
“It’s an exercise in futility,” McConnell says of the Planned Parenthood defunding effort. “I’m anxious to defund Planned Parenthood” but “the honest answer of that is that’s not going to happen until you have a president who has a similar view.”
“It’s better to be honest with the American people and say, ‘That won’t get it done.’”
According to Politico, McConnell favors a strategy that will include a short-term funding bill to buy time to negotiate a longer-term spending measure – and separately, a vote this month to federally ban abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.
GOP lawmakers have called for the defunding of Planned Parenthood in the wake of hidden-camera videos showing officials brokering the distribution of fetal tissue to medical research.
But McConnell said either a Democratic minority would block the effort, or President Barack Obama would veto a bill even if it passed the Senate.
“Groups who deeply are concerned about the issue realize this [Planned Parenthood strategy] isn’t going to get that done,” McConnell said.
“What we are going to do is move to the pain-capable [abortion] bill sometime this month and see how people feel about that,” he said referring to a 20-week abortion ban proposal.
Ah well, great. There’s absolutely no thought given to maybe taking the argument to the American people and having them pressure Obama on the issue. Maybe that would even hurt the Democrats. But no, these idiots just love to cave. And then they wonder why Trump and others like Cruz are so popular.
It looks like the thousands of protesters outside the U.S. Capitol may have persuaded at least one Congressman to rethink Obama’s nuclear deal.
Speaker John Boehner reportedly has agreed to vote on a resolution introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL). The resolution will state that Obama has not complied with the law by not submitting the full Iranian nuclear deal to Congress.
Looks like pressure from the House conservative Freedom Caucus membership has forced House Speaker John Boehner to agree the House will not pass a resolution disapproving of President Obama’s Iran deal. Instead, the House will apparently vote Friday on the resolution introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-IL), which will state that Obama has not complied with the Corker-Cardin law because he has not submitted the full Iranian nuclear “agreement,” which that law explicitly defines to include all “side deals,” between third parties (including the Iran-IAEA side deals).
The House is also anticipated to now vote on a second resolution, which would state that because the President has failed to submit the “agreement” defined by Corker-Cardin, the President has no corresponding authority to lift any existing Iranian sanctions.
The move by Boehner came after Freedom Caucus members threatened to vote down a planned resolution disapproving of the Iran deal, leaving the House on record as approving the deal. This threat was designed to leverage Boehner via potential political embarrassment, and encourage GOP leadership to consider the Roskam alternative, which will both delay congressional action on the Iran deal, as well as provide a stronger legal basis upon which to challenge any presidential action lifting sanctions.
Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush attempted to clarify his remarks about “anchor babies” during a stop near the U.S. border with Mexico on Monday, saying Asian immigrants are really more of the problem.
When asked if he thought his repeated use of the term “anchor babies” – a derogatory term for children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrant parents – Bush said: “What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there’s organized efforts, and frankly, it’s more related to Asian people coming into our country and having children in that organized effort.”
Bush prefaced his answer with “as I said in Spanish,” and went on to rail against political correctness, saying “we need to chill out.”
Watch Bush’s full answer below, via YouTube user Jerry Pace:
Given the opportunity to get to the White House, presidential candidate Jeb Bush would fight to grant Dreamers a path to citizenship while working to fix the broken immigration system in America.
“I, as President, I would go to congress and change the law to give them not a residency but citizenship,” Bush said in Spanish during a meeting attended by this writer.
The statement was made Monday afternoon at the Palenque Grill in this border city where patrons lined up to take photographs and shake hands with Bush.
When asked about the Dreamers, Bush said he did not agree with President Barack Obama’s approach by forcing an executive action, but instead, he said he would work with the U.S. Congress to pass a comprehensive immigration reform.
“You have to have a much deeper strategy than just building a fence, you have to have much more coordination with local law enforcement. There has to be more focus on a virtual fence which I propose as to using GPS technology, drone technology and other things like that,” Bush said during the event.
Prior to arriving at the local restaurant, Bush met with local officials to speak about border security issues in the area. This area, as previously reported by Breitbart Texas, has been the epicenter of an immigration crisis where hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrants from Central America have arrived to the area turning themselves in to authorities in order to be released with a notice to appear in court.
“Border Patrol needs to act on a strategy and stick with it,” Bush said. “There’s too much politicizing. They do good work, but there’s too much influence form Washington DC to be effective.”
During the appearance, Bush was asked about Donald Trump’s call for a border wall and about the immigration proposals put forth by the current presidential frontrunner.
“His plans are not grounded in conservative principles. They will cost hundreds of millions of dollars. It’s not realistic,” Bush said. “My belief we can have a comprehensive border security strategy unique to the circumstance of each part of this region.”
Multiple Spanish news outlets and CNN called out Bush for his use of the term “anchor babies” to which he said he would not apologize because he was referring to a fraudulent practice used by certain people “primarily Asian” looking to take advantage of the laws.
“Everybody needs to chill out,” the candidate told the angry news outlets stating that there was too much political correctness and that was hurting any healthy debates.
A new poll from Gallup poll indicates that establishment RINO leaders, Speaker of the House John Boehner and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, are facing a growing problem of bipartisan discontent among Americans, showing that their “go along to get along” attitude with the dictatorial Obama regime and radical leftist Democrats is backfiring more than the squishy and unprincipled duo could have ever imagined.
The new poll, conducted August 5-9, shows that only 23% of Americans view John Boehner favorably, a new all-time low for him. Among Republicans, still an overwhelming number disapprove of Boehner, known for his uncontrollable crying outbursts, with only 37% having a favorable view.
Backroom dealing, back-biting RINO Mitch McConnell, who is so charismatic that nearly four in 10 Americans (37%) have never heard of him, didn’t fair much differently.
McConnell, who became the Senate leader in January following a string of campaign promises that have already been broken, has only a 22% approval rating among Americans, with only 34% of Republicans finding McConnell favorable.
Both Boehner and McConnell have come under fire for supporting the funding of Obamacare, Planned Butcherhood, Obama’s illegal amnesty, as well as failing to fight to stop granting Obama fast-track trade authority.
Late July, conservative Congressman Mark Meadows from North Carolina launched a new resolution on the House floor, filing a historic motion requesting that establishment RINO Speaker of the House John Boehner vacate his position as speaker.
The blistering resolution stings Boehner with charges of causing the power of the legislative branch to shrink under his reign, as well as punishing members who vote in a way contrary to what Boehner desires.
McConnell’s decline falls on the heels of 2016 presidential candidate, principled constitutional conservative fighter Ted Cruz’s historic July takedown of the conniving RINO on the Senate floor for various lies (yes, he actually used the unpopular word that’s rarely used in D.C., “LIED”) McConnell has told to his fellow Republicans, the American people and the media in order to conceal his dirty dealings that support the Obama regime and big government.
To grasp the significance of Boehner and McConnell’s poor showing, their favorability ratings are even worse than hated California Communist Nancy Pelosi’s were while she was Speaker of the House prior to Boehner assuming the helm in 2010. In October of 2010, Gallup points out that Pelosi was viewed favorably by 26% of Americans, a higher score than either Boehner or McConnell. The weak leaders are also nipping at the heels of highly unpopular leftist and then-Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who in October of last year was viewed favorably by only 21% of Americans.
Cruz’s powerful smackdown of establishment elitist McConnell last month included pointing out that the results in the Senate under McConnell’s leadership have not been one iota different than if Democrat Harry Reid were still in charge:
“There is a profound disappointment among the American people because we keep winning elections and then we keep getting leaders who don’t do anything they promised.
The American people were told ‘if only we have a Republican majority in the House, things will be different.’
Well, in 2010 the American people showed up in enormous numbers and we got a Republican majority in the House — and very little changed. Then the American people were told, ‘you know, the problem is the Senate. If only we get a Republican majority in the Senate and retire Harry Reid as majority leader, then things will be different.’
Well, in 2014 the American people rose up in enormous numbers, voted to do exactly that. We’ve had a Republican majority in both houses of Congress now for about six months.
What has that majority done?
First thing we did, in December, is we came back and passed a $1 trillion ‘cromnibus’ plan filled with pork and corporate welfare. That was the very first thing we did. Then this Republican majority voted to fund Obamacare, voted to fund President Obama’s unconstitutional executive amnesty. And then leadership rammed through the confirmation of Loretta lynch as Attorney General.
Madam President, which of those decisions would be one iota different if Harry Reid were still majority leader? Not a one. Not a one. This Senate operates exactly the same — the same priorities.
“It’s not that this majority doesn’t get things done. It does get things done, but it listens to one and only one voice,” Cruz said on the Senate Floor during his epic speech. “That is the voice of the Washington Cartel, of the lobbyists on K Street, of the big money and big corporations,” he asserted.
The rumors began trickling in about a week before the scheduled vote on April 23: Republican leadership was quietly pushing senators to pull support for subpoenaing Congress’s fraudulent application to the District of Columbia’s health exchange – the document that facilitated Congress’s “exemption” from Obamacare by allowing lawmakers and staffers to keep their employer subsidies.
The application said Congress employed just 45 people. Names were faked; one employee was listed as “First Last,” another simply as “Congress.” To Small Business Committee chairman David Vitter, who has fought for years against the Obamacare exemption, it was clear that someone in Congress had falsified the document in order to make lawmakers and their staff eligible for taxpayer subsidies provided under the exchange for small-business employees.
But until Vitter got a green light from the Small Business Committee to subpoena the unredacted application from the District of Columbia health exchange, it would be impossible to determine who in Congress gave it a stamp of approval. When Vitter asked Republicans on his committee to approve the subpoena, however, he was unexpectedly stonewalled.
With nine Democrats on the committee lined up against the proposal, the chairman needed the support of all ten Republicans to issue the subpoena. But, though it seems an issue tailor-made for the tea-party star and Republican presidential candidate, Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) refused to lend his support. And when the Louisiana senator set a public vote for April 23, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and his allies got involved.
“For whatever reason, leadership decided they wanted that vote to be 5-5, all Republicans, to give Senator Paul cover,” one high-ranking committee staffer tells National Review. “So they worked at a member level to change the votes of otherwise supportive senators.” Four Republicans – senators Mike Enzi, James Risch, Kelly Ayotte, and Deb Fischer – had promised to support Vitter, but that would soon change.
Senate staffers, according to a top committee aide, reported seeing Missouri senator Roy Blunt make calls to at least two Republican committee members, lobbying them, at McConnell’s behest, to vote no on subpoenaing the exchange. By the time the committee was called to quorum, Enzi, Risch, Ayotte, and Fischer voted no.
To many observers, it was curious that any Republican would move to put the brakes on an investigation into Obamacare fraud, and particularly curious that they would pull back in an instance where the federal government was actually defrauding itself, one that so clearly illustrates Obamacare’s flaws by exposing the bureaucratic jujitsu and outright dishonesty required of federal employees themselves to navigate the law.
Conservative health-care experts can’t understand the reasoning behind the GOP senators’ opposition. They see politics and self-interest at play, and they allege that Republican leaders are as invested as their Democratic counterparts in maintaining their subsidies, fraudulently obtained, while avoiding scrutiny from an overwhelmingly disapproving American public.
“We deserve to know who signed that application, because they are robbing taxpayers,” says Michael Cannon, director of health-policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute. The staffers who signed the fraudulent application, he says, “know who was directing them to do this. And so we have to follow the trail of breadcrumbs. This is the next breadcrumb, and whoever is farther up the trail wants to stop Vitter right here.”
The story of the ill-fated subpoena can be traced back to the debate over the Affordable Care Act, when Senator Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa) insisted that lawmakers and congressional staff join a health-care exchange set up under the bill. For government employees, that meant giving up government-subsidized health-care contributions of between $5,000 and $10,000 per person. The White House scrambled to find a way to allow congressional employees to keep those subsidies. In Washington, D.C., only the small-business exchange allowed them to do so. After secret meetings with House speaker John Boehner in 2013, President Obama instructed the Office of Personnel Management to allow Congress to file for classification as a small business, despite the fact that the law defines a small business as having no more than 50 employees and the House and Senate together employ tens of thousands.
When Vitter’s staffers tracked down the application and discovered obvious signs of fraud, Vitter requested approval to subpoena an unredacted copy of the application. The value of that document, says Cannon, is that it would reveal the name of the person who filed it. “Now you’ve got someone to call to testify,” he says, predicting that testimony would precipitate a congressional vote on whether to end the congressional exemption altogether.
“I think it makes sense to find out what happened,” says Yuval Levin, the editor of National Affairs, a noted conservative health-care voice and a National Review contributor. “It would be pretty interesting to see whose name is on the forms,” he says. “It has to go beyond mid-level staffers.”
But some congressional Republicans, it seems, are also resistant to getting to the bottom of the mystery – or, at the very least, they are content to let sleeping dogs lie.
Committee rules for a subpoena require either the consent of the ranking member or a majority of the group’s 19 senators. Because Democrats quickly made their opposition clear, Vitter needed the approval of all ten Republicans. Nine of them quickly consented via e-mail; one senator was strangely unresponsive.
Senior committee aides say that Rand Paul’s staff didn’t immediately reply to an e-mail requesting the senator’s consent and, when they did, they refused to provide it. When Vitter attempted to set up a member-to-member meeting, his overtures were ignored or put off. Paul’s policy staff refused to take a meeting. When Vitter tried to confront Paul on the Senate floor, they say, the Kentucky senator skirted the issue.
It wasn’t until after the vote that Paul shared his reasoning. “Senator Paul opposes allowing Congress to exempt themselves from any legislation,” an aide told the Conservative Review. “To that end, yesterday, he reintroduced his proposed constitutional amendment to prohibit Congress from passing any law that exempts themselves. Senator Paul prefers this option over a partisan cross-examination of Congressional staff.”
But a constitutional amendment is a longshot that would take years, and it hardly precluded an investigation of congressional corruption here and now.
“That’s absurd,” says Robert Moffit, the director of the Center for Health Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “You don’t need a constitutional amendment to get a subpoena… I don’t know where he’s coming from.”
“The answers he has given do not make sense,” Cannon says of Paul. “And when someone with his principles does something that is so obviously against his principles, and does not give an adequate explanation, you begin to think that politics is afoot. It would have to be someone very powerful that made him a powerful pitch – or threat – to keep him from doing this.”
Paul’s press secretary tells National Review that the senator “examines every opportunity to [oppose Obamacare] individually, and does not base his vote on requests made by other senators, including the majority leader.”
Asked whether McConnell pushed Paul or any other senator on the subpoena, a spokesman for McConnell says the majority leader “didn’t make any announcements when that committee voted.”
The flip-flopping Republicans justified their change of heart. Risch said in the April 23 committee meeting that legal wrangling with the D.C. exchange could take time away from the committee’s small-business work. Enzi said he saw little wrong with the application as is.
“Each of us has our own budget, each of us has our own staff,” he said. “I don’t know about everybody else, but I’m way under 50 [employees]. So my staff qualifies as a small business.”
Enzi was one of the original sponsors of Vitter’s 2013 amendment to end the congressional Obamacare exemption, but his press secretary tells National Review he felt the probe “could inadvertently target staff who simply completed paperwork as part of their job.” He insists that Enzi “made up his own mind.” Risch, Ayotte, and Fischer declined to comment.
A spokesman for South Carolina senator Tim Scott, who voted for the subpoena, says that nobody lobbied him one way or the other, while a spokesman for Florida senator Marco Rubio, who also voted in favor of the measure, declined to comment.
Health-care experts dismiss Enzi’s claim that each member’s office is its own small business, and not just because the health exchange application was filed for Congress as a whole. “These congressional offices that think they’re small businesses, are they LLCs?” Cannon asks. “Are they S-Corps? Are they shareholder-owned? Are they privately held? What is the ownership structure of this small business that you’re running, senator? It’s just utterly ridiculous.”
“They’re transparently absurd,” says Moffit of Senate Republicans claiming small-business status. “Who made the determination that Congress is a small business and is therefore eligible for subsidies that do not legally exist? How did that happen?”
No one quite knows what’s behind leadership’s apparent push to kill the subpoena. The move baffled some committee staffers. “The amount of blood that McConnell and Paul spilled to prevent [the subpoena] from happening makes me wonder [if] maybe that isn’t all that there is to it,” the high-ranking staffer says. “Maybe other people signed it… They’re clearly afraid of something bigger than a person’s name getting out there.”
Others, however, think the motives behind GOP leadership’s apparent obfuscation are clear. “If there’s one thing that absolutely drives Americans fundamentally crazy, it’s the idea that Congress can set one set of rules for themselves and another for everybody else,” says Moffit. “That’s political poison, and that’s why they have been so desperate to avoid the issue.”
“The most powerful interest group in Washington D.C., is not the Chamber or the unions or anyone else,” Cannon says. “It is members of Congress and their staffs. And when it comes to their benefits, they are all members of the same party.”
Jeb Bush had a rough day at CPAC 2015.
The crowd booed him during his Q-and-A with Sean Hannity and several conservatives walked out during the session.
Conservatives streamed out of CPAC 2015 when Jeb Bush hit the stage.
It’s a good thing he bussed in supporters to cheer for him.
It sounds like Jeb Bush’s supporters are taking CPAC pretty seriously this year. Emails provided to Slate show that backers of the former Florida governor are busing supporters from downtown Washington D.C. to CPAC in National Harbor, Maryland, and organizing to get them day passes into the event.
One of the emails that went out this morning was from Fritz Brogan, a former advance man for then-President George W. Bush who (per the Washington Post) co-hosted a fundraiser for Jeb’s Right to Rise PAC earlier this month. A Bush insider confirmed to Slate that Bush’s Right to Rise PAC is helping organize the transportation.
“We strongly recommend arriving as early as possible to get a seat,” wrote Brogan in an email sent to undisclosed recipients. “Our ‘Early Rise’ team will be there at 7:30am onward helping reserve seats- if you want to join the early team, let me know.”
Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor whose father and brother have both occupied the White House, announced Tuesday he is considering running for president in 2016.
Bush said on his Facebook page that after talking it over with his family during Thanksgiving, he has decided to formally explore a run.
“As a result of these conversations and thoughtful consideration of the kind of strong leadership I think America needs, I have decided to actively explore the possibility of running for president of the United States,” he wrote. “In January, I also plan to establish a Leadership PAC that will help me facilitate conversations with citizens across America to discuss the most critical challenges facing our exceptional nation.”
Bush said the purpose of his political action committee would be to “support leaders, ideas and policies that will expand opportunity and prosperity for all Americans.”
“In the coming months, I hope to visit with many of you and have a conversation about restoring the promise of America,” he added.
Bush’s decision will likely please some Republicans who are looking for some sort of established leader to win the White House from presumed Democratic frontrunner, former first lady, senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. But it will also likely lead to grumbling among conservative Republicans who say Bush is too moderate. The former governor has been outspoken in his defense of the Common Core State Standards, a major conservative sticking point.
On Monday, the Christian Science Monitor reported that radio host Mark Levin called Bush a “very good moderate Democrat,” and that former GOP presidential candidate Pat Buchanan said Bush is “too moderate for the Republican base.”
Clinton has not officially announced that she is exploring a run or that she will run. Bush is the first GOP candidate to explore a run, and former Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.) is the only Democrat to take the same step.
Could Georgia’s 10th Congressional District runoff take a page from the Mississippi U.S. Senate race?
Tim Bryant spoke on the radio the other day about a mailer he received urging Democrats to vote for trucking executive Mike Collins in the Republican runoff in the race to replace U.S. Rep. Paul Broun. Collins is running against minister Jody Hice, whose comments about Islam, women and gays have caused a stir.
A reader sent us the mailer itself, which we present above. It was attached to an absentee ballot application. The argument:
“Due to the gerrymandering of our Congressional district, it is nearly impossible for a Democrat to get elected… We, as citizens of the 10th Congressional District, cannot afford a Congressman like Jody Hice. Why you ask? Here are just a few reasons why Hice is too radical to represent us in Washington.”
The mailer does not say who paid for it – and the only reported outside spending on mailers in the race has been by a gun rights group for Hice – so we can’t say for sure it is the Democrats. Hice was willing to assume in a fundraising appeal:
“Democrats are trying to do in Georgia what they did in Mississippi. We must not allow liberals to decide another Republican election.”
He’s referring to the Thad Cochran-Chris McDaniel GOP runoff last month, in which crossover votes from black Democrats appeared to provide the incumbent senator’s slim margin of victory.
Volunteers working for tea party challenger Chris McDaniel in Mississippi say they have already found 20 percent of the invalid double-votes they need to cancel Sen. Thad Cochran’s business-funded runoff victory.
“We’re finished with Hinds County, and we’re up to 1,500” invalid votes, said Noel Fritsch, Daniel’s press aide.
That’s critical because McDaniel can force another runoff if he can find more invalid votes than Cochran’s roughly 7,000-vote margin-of-victory on June 24. Votes are invalidated if voters cast ballots in both the Democrats’ June 3 primary and the GOP’s run-off on June 24.
However, McDaniel can also force another election even if he can’t find 7,000 invalid ballots, said Fritsch.
“We don’t have to prove that we have 7,000 [invalid] votes… all there needs to be is enough doubt about the election, and we’re confident about that,” he said.
That “cancel by doubt” strategy gives the McDaniel campaign an incentive to collect evidence about possible vote-buying and other potentially unethical behavior by Cochran’s campaign.
So far, there are many reports about shady outreach to Democratic voters supposedly undertaken by Cochran and his allies, particularly done by relatives of former Gov. Haley Barbour.
For example, The Daily Caller reported that Henry Barbour, the head of the Mississippi Conservatives PAC and the nephew of Haley Barbour, paid Democratic operative Mitzi Bickers “to make paid calls to potential Cochran supporters.” Those calls may have spurred many loyal Democrats to cast invalid votes.
In the search for improper votes, GOP officials who are affiliated with Cochran’s campaign are trying to block McDaniel’s search for invalidated votes that are recorded in the poll books, Fritsch said.
“They’re stalling in at least half of the counties across the state,” he said.
Some are “asking for large fees, and throwing up every roadblock you can imagine to stop us from seeing the poll books,” Fristch stated.
That resistance “tells us they don’t want us to see the poll books,” he added.
Roughly 84,000 voters cast ballots in the Democratic primary. To find 7,000 invalid votes, more than 8.5 percent of the 84,000 people who cast votes in the Democratic Primary would also have to have cast votes in the GOP runoff.
However, 19,000 absentee voters cast ballots in the GOP run-off, and many of those votes may be improper, say McDaniel’s allies.
“We haven’t gotten into them yet, but we’re confident that is where a lot of their effort was concentrated, and that’s where we’ll find a lot more ineligible votes,” Fritsch said.
The 1,500 invalid votes already detected were found in Hinds County, which is a heavily populated and predominately Democrat county. That’s because – in a state where partisan loyalties are particularly polarized by race – 69 percent of its large population is African American.
There are many other counties with mostly Democratic and African-American populations, but they’re much smaller than Hinds County.
The House GOP conference elected Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) Thursday afternoon to be their leader, once current Majority Leader Eric Cantor – who was unexpectedly defeated in his primary last week by a relative unknown – steps down in late July.
McCarthy overcame a late challenge from Rep. Raul Labrador (R-ID), a Tea Party congressman from the more conservative wing of the party, after Financial Services Chairman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX) balked at running for the position and Rules Committee Chairman Pete Sessions (R-TX) dropped out last week.
The California congressman is currently majority whip, the third most powerful House Republican, elected to the position by his peers in 2010. He was first elected to Congress in 2006.
McCarthy, who hails from a blue state, has put a premium on fiscal and economic issues but is seen by some as not sufficiently conservative.
“Since gaining control of the House in November 2010, Kevin and his Republican colleagues have blocked the largest tax increase in American history, cut out-of-control government spending by historic levels and passed numerous pieces of legislation that will help create jobs in America,” his official biography boasts.
McCarthy – viewed by many as another establishment Republican – has a current Heritage Action rating of 42 percent and a lifetime 50 percent (compared to Labrador’s 77 percent and 82 percent respectively) and a 2013 72 percent rating from the American Conservative Union and a 90.4 percent lifetime rating (compared to Labrador’s 100 percent and 97.2 percent respectively).
The California Republican in recent months raised the eyebrows of anti-amnesty advocates with his co-sponsorship of the ENLIST Act, which would have provided a pathway to citizenship for certain undocumented youth who serve in the military.
Both McCarthy and Labrador are seen as soft on amnesty.
Numbers USA, an immigration reduction group, gave McCarthy an “F-,” compared to Labrador’s “C+,” this Congress. McCarthy’s low score this year, however, appears to be largely due to his co-sponsorship of the ENLIST Act. Overall, McCarthy’s lifetime rating is an “A” (compared to Labrador’s “B”).
Ironically, many political pundits have speculated that Cantor lost his Virginia primary election due to squishiness on amnesty.
I know it’s not fun to pick on people for their age. Unfortunately, Thad Cochran’s refusal to let go of power all too long past his prime mitigates my concern in that regard. Sources on the ground in MS tell me the Cochran campaign is looking increasingly cartoonish in trying to eek out a win in what most are coming to realize is a lost cause. So, no, it doesn’t surprise me that Team Cochran would hire a Democrat named “Scooby Doo” to work for him at this point.
This is just getting sad…
A Democratic political operative says he is working with Mississippi Conservatives PAC to drum up votes for U.S. Sen. Thad Cochran.
James “Scooby Doo” Warren said he has put together a get-out-the-vote GOTV plan and is “putting it in place across the whole state.” Warren said he is not working with the Cochran campaign itself but for the PAC and Bishop Ronnie Crudup Sr.
Crudup is the pastor at New Horizon Church, which shares an address and chief financial officer with a newly formed super PAC that ran print advertising in the primary supporting Cochran.
More via The Clarion Ledger.
Tea Party-backed Chris McDaniel is continuing to show accelerating momentum in his race to unseat 76-year-old, 42-year incumbent (36 years in U.S. Senate, six in House), establishment-backed Thad Cochran in the heated Mississippi run-off.
According to a new poll conducted by WPA Opinion Research, Chris McDaniel has opened up a sizable 8% lead over Sen. Thad Cochran, 49% – 41%.
“It is clear Chris McDaniel is well-positioned to win on June 24,” says a polling memo from the firm about the poll conducted June 9-10 with a margin of error of 4.4%.
The poll shows only 10% of voters undecided in the race, a number that should bode well for McDaniel, as most voters should have already made up their mind on Cochran after 42 years in office.
The polling memo says that 43% of voters were “definitely” voting for McDaniel, while 38% feel the same way about Cochran.
McDaniel narrowly defeated Cochran, 49.5% – 49.0% (155,040 – 153,654), in the recent Mississippi Senate primary, however, neither received the necessary threshold of over 50% to avoid the runoff election.
Two other polls, both conducted on June 5, also show McDaniel leading over Cochran, albeit by smaller spreads. Chism Strategies, a national Democratic pollster based in Mississippi, had McDaniel leading 51 to 48 percent. Strategic National, a national GOP pollster, had McDaniel leading 52 to 46 percent.
The race is seen as another “David vs. Goliath” race, with a grassroots constitutional conservative, McDaniel, taking on the well-funded, big business-backed Cochran, with similarities to the Dave Brat victory over GOP House Majority Leader, Eric Cantor.
These recent numbers show McDaniel has clearly maintained the momentum in the race.